Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL (By Order)

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing (Improvement Grants)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the rate of progress of house improvement in Scotland following the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1969; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I shall be satisfied only when no more improvement work remains to be done, but in the first quarter of this year 25 per cent. more applications for grant were approved than in the first quarter of 1969.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Minister of State say what progress has been made in privately-rented accommodation, which is a very important sector, particularly in certain cities?

Dr. Mabon: There has been an improvement in the first quarter of 1970 compared with that of 1969, although not quite as dramatic an improvement as that in the local authority sector. I have taken

the first quarter deliberately because, as is understandable, in the last quarter of 1969 people were waiting to see what the Act meant before they made applications.

Mr. Hannan: How many applications have been received from the City of Glasgow, and how many houses are involved?

Dr. Mabon: I am afraid that I cannot give that information without notice. But I am not satisfied with the pace at which it is proceeding.

Housing (Home Ownership)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his study of the Cullingworth Report on Owner Occupation in Scotland, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the Cullingworth Report on Owner Occupation in Scotland, a copy of which is in his possession.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: At present I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on 18th February. —[Vol. 796, c. 123.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister of State aware that the report highlights the fact that in Scotland home ownership is unattractive by comparison with renting? What steps are the Government taking to try to make home ownership more attractive for people in Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: I appreciate the usefulness of the report. The Secretary of State read it with great interest. But the hon. Member knows from a previous reply that we are conducting a general review of housing finance in both the public and the private sectors. We are making this an intensive review.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does the hon. Member recognise that there is less home ownership in Scotland than in any other country west of the Iron Curtain? What positive steps can he take to encourage local authorities to sell local authority houses to individuals, to satisfy the great demand which is building up for private home ownership in Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: I am not sure about the comparison with other countries west of the Iron Curtain.

Earl of Dalkeith: It is true.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is in the report.

Dr. Mabon: I am entitled occasionally to have opinions of my own, whether the report makes that statement or not. I am not certain whether the facts stated are fair. But that is not the point. The point is that during the 13 years that the Conservative Party were in office the position was exactly the same. The proportion has always been one in five. We all regret that. The Labour Government in 1968 and 1969 achieved record years of private house building. We hope, with our general review, to do better.

Murder (Sentences)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now institute a review of the law relating to sentences for murder in Scotland, following the representations made to him by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have considered this matter in the light of the hon. Gentleman's representations and of the abolition of the death penalty, but I am not persuaded of the need for an examination by a committee of inquiry.

Mr. Campbell: Since the law on this matter is the same in Scotland as in England, as the Secretary of State recently confirmed in a Parliamentary reply, thus contradicting a wild statement made by one of his Under-Secretaries, why is the right hon. Gentleman not taking similar action to that of the Home Secretary, whom I see here? Has he noted the remarks by eminent members of the judiciary that judges ought to have power to give longer sentences instead of being restricted to the mandatory sentence for murder?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I have noted references by eminent authorities on English law to, I presume, English practice. But the hon. Member is wrong when he refers to the Home Secretary's committee. This is a standing committee, of which we have

no equivalent in Scotland. It is going into the whole question of offences against the person, including definitions. The hon. Member should be the first to realise that the definition of murder in Scotland is much more satisfactory than is the definition of murder in England. It would be quite wrong for me, on the basis of problems in England, to set up such a committee in Scotland.

Mr. Dewar: Would my right hon. Friend accept that the circumstances in English law are very different in this case and that there is no need to " bandwagon " in the blatant way that hon. Members opposite are doing? Would he accept that there are, inevitably and properly, enormous variations in the time served under life sentences and that the only answer must be to have a mandatory life sentence, to mark the unique seriousness of the crime, combined with maximum flexibility to allow the authorities to take account of changing circumstances?

Mr. Ross: I constantly have Scots law under review. I am not deaf to any reasonable appeals which may be made to me, but I would ask hon. Gentlemen to appreciate that the procedures in Scottish courts, the verdicts in Scottish courts, and how these are reached, are all different. Let us not just trail on the heels of England.

Mr. Wylie: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept, recognising that there are differences, that these are marginal in their effect and that the problem facing the criminal law in Scotland following the abolition of the death penalty is essentially the same as the problem in England?

Mr. Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman should know that the problem has been there for some time—

Mr. Wylie: Since the abolition of the death penalty?

Mr. Ross: No. The problem has been there for some time. There have been no suggestions that we should have recourse to variable determinate sentences. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would examine it they will find that there are tremendous difficulties which may lead to public concern if, within this variation and taking into account the circumstances of a particular crime, we were to get four


or five cases of murder in which the sentence could be two, three or four years' imprisonment.

Clyde Valley (Planning)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest position in regard to rationalising the planning system in the area of the Firth of Clyde.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans for future planning arrangements in the Clyde Valley.

Mr. Ross: The Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee has for some time been considering proposals but before it by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for setting up an organisation to prepare a regional advisory plan for West Central Scotland. My hon. Friend is meeting the committe on 24th April, and I hope that final arrangements can be agreed at the meeting.

Mr. Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is now a year since the Government began to reactivate this advisory committee? Has the committee yet agreed with the Government upon its tasks or has agreement still to be decided on Friday? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress to date?

Mr. Ross: There is less trouble about the tasks, and we could readily reach agreement in respect of that aspect. It is the question of how to proceed from the point of view of representation on the committee. I am not pessimistic about the outcome, and I hope that on Friday my hon. Friend will reach a measure of agreement.

Mr. Mackenzie: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are those of us who think that the advisory committee was allowed, by the other side of the House, to lie dormant for far too long? Can he assure the House that he is aware that we in Rutherglen and Lanarkshire would like him to act on this, because we are genuinely concerned about the effect of the movement of industry and so forth from Lanarkshire to the coast and the effect that it will have on the economy in general?

Mr. Ross: I am conscious of the cooperation that we have had from Rutherglen. Most people are anxious to have this committee reactivated. I am hopeful that my hon. Friend's meeting on Friday will have this effect.

Mr. Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the proposals by Lord Wheatley when he produces his White Paper on this very important subject?

Mr. Ross: This is a different question. There are many aspects of co-operation which have to be taken into account and which can be frustrated by a failure to get agreement among different local authorities over the regional policy.

Tayside (Employment)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the trend of employment in the Tayside area is in accordance with the targets set out in the White Paper, " The Scottish Economy 1965 to 1970 ".

Mr. Ross: Employment projections for individual areas of Scotland were not made in the White Paper.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman not admit frankly that employment on Tayside has fallen sharply, as it has throughout Scotland? Will he now revise the totally misleading forecasts in his pre-election White Paper?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman still gets confused about manpower projections, which his Government never even tried to do, and the question of new jobs. He knows quite well that what is happening now in the Tayside area, with the Tayside Consultative Group, is forward planning for the development of the area, which has the support of most people in Tayside, if not of the hon. Gentleman.

Fee-paying and Selective Schools

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions he has held with regard to the future of local authority fee-paying schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will


make a further statement on the discussions which he has had with Glasgow and Edinburgh Corporations about the future of their fee-paying and selective schools.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has received from Edinburgh Corporation to his letter of 23rd January on the subject of future arrangements which he has asked it to make with regard to fee-paying schools and if he will make a statement.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a further statement on fee-paying schools in Edinburgh, in the light of the replies of Edinburgh Corporation to his letter of 23rd January.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): My Department wrote to Edinburgh and Glasgow Corporations on 23rd January asking them to consider amendments to their scheme of transfer and educational provision to take account of the 1969 Education (Scotland) Act which removes the power to charge fees for school education at schools managed by them. Edinburgh requested a discussion, which was held on 20th February. I now have replies from both authorities, and I am considering these.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that while he considers these proposals he will stop bullying and badgering the democratically-elected bodies in Edinburgh and Glasgow?

Mr. Millan: I would not accept for one moment that I have been bullying and badgering anyone on this. I certainly intend to give the replies full consideration, but I would hope that some kind of announcement would be made about the result of that consideration quite shortly.

Mr. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear that a scheme will be absolutely unacceptable if it contains any selection method for entry to secondary schools?

Mr. Millan: I have already made it clear that we want to see the abolition of selection.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people are out-

raged at the Government not only for depriving them of freedom of choice but more particularly for the way in which they have kicked in the teeth two of Scotland's largest local authorities which are perfectly capable of making up their own minds on this matter?

Mr. Millan: I am not aware that there is a large number of people who are outraged. I am aware that a large number of people in Scotland fully support the Government's determination to introduce comprehensive reorganisation because they are aware of the wastage involved in the selective system.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that as we in Midlothian have no fee-paying schools, and because we live close to Edinburgh, many people are leaving Edinburgh and coming to live in Midlothian because of the education set-up there?

Mr. Millan: I am aware of the excellent education record of the Midlothian authority, and I am very much looking forward to opening a large new comprehensive school in Midlothian this Friday.

Young Offenders

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconstitute the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, with a view to giving further consideration to the custodial treatment of young offenders in Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): As the hon. and learned Member will know, my right hon. Friend has circulated for comment proposals for altering the custodial sentences for young offenders. In present circumtances I do not think that a committee of inquiry would be appropriate.

Mr. Wylie: I am aware that this memorandum has been circulated and I have read it with interest. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary has remitted a similar problem to the Advisory Council on the Penal System? Is he further aware that I cannot understand the reluctance of Scottish Ministers to set up a similar body in Scotland? Would it not be better, on such a broad issue, when young offenders


unfortunately loom so large in our criminal records, if we were to reconstitute the very useful body which did such good work in this direction 10 years ago?

Mr. Buchan: It is true that it did good work, and was stood down by the party opposite. The point is that the proposal arose from a wide-ranging conference. All the views expressed were sent to every organisation involved and we are studying the representations made on that basis. This is an equally democratic method, which is more effective and certainly swifter.

Glasgow (Passenger Transport Authority)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when a passenger transport authority will be established in the Glasgow area.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Not till after my right hon. Friend has completed the necessary consultations.

Mr. Taylor: As the Minister has already refused to give me an assurance that he will not force a P.T.A. on Glasgow against its wishes, can he at least give a promise to the people of Glasgow that before he insists on a P.T.A. being established he will make it clear to the ratepayers of Glasgow and other authorities what a P.T.A. will mean in increased rates?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Lord Provost, who has approached the Government formally on this matter, as well as Glasgow Corporation, is well aware that if the corporation has points to raise about boundaries, membership or other matters we will certainly arrange a meeting with a Scottish Minister, if not my right hon. Friend. The local authorities have now had three months to make informal comments. After we have had these there will be a further process of consultation about any draft designation order, but no single authority can have the right of veto over the promotion of a P.T.A.

Mr. Small: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Scottish T.U.C. supports the introduction of the P.T.A.?

Dr. Mabon: Yes. In addition, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr.

Edward M. Taylor) is perhaps not aware that most of the Press, including the Right-wing Press—perhaps that is not a commendation—endorses the fact that the P.T.A. is a good idea.

Manpower Projection

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the percentage increase in the number of employees in employment during the year June, 1969, to June, 1970, required to fulfil the predictions in Table B of page 9 of Command Paper No. 2864; and how this compares with the actual outturn in each of the last five years.

Mr. Ross: For reasons which I have already given, I do not expect the manpower projection for 1970 to be attained. This would require an increase of at least 4 per cent. between 1969 and 1970, compared with percentage changes of 0·8; 0·2; —2·0; —0·7 and 0·2 in the previous five years.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is a more honest reply than we have had from the Secretary of State for some time. While we all recognise that the Scottish Plan is as dead as the dodo or the Government's 1964 election pledges, could the right hon. Gentleman not at least try to undertake to secure the 21,000 jobs required this year to bring the situation back to what it was when he took office?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that anyone in Scotland wants the situation to return to what it was when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power. I have long since recognised the impossibility of freeing the hon. Member from statistical entanglements. He does not yet know the difference between projections and new jobs. The fact is that we have produced more new jobs, roads, houses and schools. The hon. Gentleman's persistence is fatuous, futile, and forlorn.

Mr. Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the hon. Gentleman opposite how far the net shortfall is made up of low-paid farm workers, domestic servants and messenger boys, who have virtually disappeared from the employment scene in Scotland these days?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should appreciate that we have tried to explain this to the hon. Gentleman but we


recognise his limitations and it would be a waste of time trying to educate him. The fact that there are now 24,000 more people staying on at school and as full-time students at colleges of education and universities has a considerable effect upon the figures.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, however much he may haver, he is 101,000 jobs adrift from his pre-election promise?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, wrong again.

Wheatley Report

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to issue a White Paper on the Government's proposals concerning the financial arrangements for implementing the Wheatley Report recommendations.

Mr. Ross: The Government's proposals will be published in a Green Paper in time for consultations and public discussion to take place before legislation is prepared.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: While I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, does he realise that until we have some idea of what the financial proposals are, and their implications, it is very difficult to come to sensible conclusions about these recommendations?

Mr. Ross: I am satisfied that the way we are proceeding is right. This information will be laid before the House.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while he may say that consultation is important, a lot of people in local government are extremely disappointed that the consultation has not taken place before the White Paper has been produced?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman really wants to make progress in this he should appreciate that if we embark upon what would be virtually another Royal Commission it would be many years before we achieved the reorganisation which everyone agrees is urgently necessary.

High Flats

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent directives or advice he has issued

to local authorities in Scotland concerning the future building of high blocks of flats.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular issued by my Department on 17th April which gives local and buildings authorities information on loading standards in the design of high flats and other buildings.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that high flats are often ugly and that people do not like to live in them? Is he aware that some are dangerous? Is it not time that we ceased to build them and provided more reasonable accommodation, particularly for children, because there is never enough space for them in these flats?

Dr. Mabon: That is a very big question. Some local authorities will disagree with the hon. Gentleman but there are certain physical facts about the need for multi-storey flats. The social implications of living in high flats are the subject of an examination by the Department of Social and Economic Research of Glasgow University. On the whole, local authorities are anxious to build a certain proportion of multi-storey flats but they will be looking forward to our circular when the Building (Scotland) Bill is through both Houses. We expect to issue the circular then.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a good deal of criticism of some of these high-rise flats by social workers, planning authorities and, as recently as this week, on aesthetic grounds the Saltire Society? What work are the Government undertaking on low-rise high density housing, some of which is now being discussed in architectural circles?

Dr. Mabon: That is a fair point and I do not deny it. In certain cities, Glasgow being an outstanding example, there is a clear case for multi-storey building, but as early as 1965 the Government urged Glasgow Corporation not to build so many multi-storey flats or buildings as it was intending to build in the last four years.

Agriculture (Haulage Charges)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the increased haulage charges to farmers by


the operation of the Transport Act was taken into account by the Price Review.

Mr. Buchan: Increases in transport costs in general are taken into account at each Annual Review.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister realise that, over and above increased transport costs, chaos is being created in the industry by the application of the Transport Act? Is he aware that large numbers of cattle and sheep are being stranded in the marts overnight, and even longer, because of the limitation on drivers' hours?

Mr. Buchan: This is not a new experience. It has always been the case at every busy mart that cattle may be left overnight, and hon. Members opposite know it. The only adjustment was the change in working hours of one hour. The House will be pleased to know that I am arranging a meeting of all those involved in markets to discuss this matter. It will be chaired by one of my officers and will include Ministry of Transport officials and the N.F.U.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the full effects of this measure were not known at the time of the Price Review? Does he not realise that auctioneers and farmers all over the country are worried about what will happen when markets get really busy at the end of the year and that this may cause more cruelty to the animals?

Mr. Buchan: I have been keeping an eye on this matter. The most publicised event was the mart at St. Boswells. I had a senior official there to keep an eye on things. The facts were not as bad as they appeared from similarly-worded reports in two newspapers on the following day. We are looking into this matter and it is being looked after. I wish hon. Members opposite would not try to cry "Doom " before a new project has got off the ground.

Mr. Ellis: Would my hon. Friend take a strong line against these backwoodsmen who are trying to portray Scotland as being a land where men have to work more hours than men do in England to keep the economy going? Will he see to it that the provisions applying to drivers' hours will apply in Scotland as they do in England?

Mr. Buchan: I hope that hon. Members opposite will have in mind what my hon. Friend has said. He is correct. This is a valuable social development which was done for good human reasons. If difficulties arise, it is our task to cope with them, rather than use them to try to defeat the Transport Act.

Hill and Upland Farms (Production)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the target for the number of hill ewes in Scotland for 1970–71.

Mr. Buchan: There is no specific target for hill ewes; but numbers in Scotland have shown no significant change in recent years.

Mr. Monro: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the price of wool exerts a significant influence on the number of hill ewes? Why has the price of black-faced wool been reduced by 3d. per lb. and of Cheviot and half-bred wool by 2d. per lb. in the last week or two? Does he not agree that this is an intolerable reduction and shows further double-talk on the Price Review?

Mr. Buchan: That might have been useful if the hon. Gentleman had put down a specific question on the matter of wool. As regards the number of hill ewes, one of the most important factors involved is the weather, and not even this Government have been able to control the weather. On the question of Government resources for development, it will be remembered that we raised the end price for sheep by 8¾d. and that the Conservative Party reduced it.

Mr. Munro: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of production he estimates from hill and upland farms in 1970; and how this compares with 1969.

Mr. Buchan: Some increase in cattle production on hill and upland farms is expected in 1970 compared with 1969. The level of sheep production will depend on this year's lamb crop, which cannot yet be forecast.

Mr. Brewis: Is it not, therefore, extremely disappointing that the price of wool has now remained the same for the last 10 years? Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter as sympathetically as he can?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, Sir. It is curious how hon. Members opposite pick on one aspect. If they look at the increases in end price and the hill sheep subsidy, the winter keep scheme, the hill land improvement scheme, and the introduction of the new upland hill sheep subsidy, they will find that all these are worth noting. I wish they would get the wool out of their eyes and look at this.

Prescription Charges (Children)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that pupils attending special schools and under 16 years of age are not exempt from prescription charges; and if he will take steps to end this anomaly.

Mr. Millan: There is exemption for children up to the fifteenth birthday. I do not think any alteration of the existing arrangements is necessary.

Mr. Dempsey: But is my hon. Friend not overlooking the fact that these children at special schools due to physical handicaps are compelled to have a shorter day in school and consequently have a longer school life? Why should they be penalised from the age of 15 to 16 because of their physical disability? Will not my hon. Friend look again at the exemptions in regard to school children?

Mr. Millan: But my hon. Friend must understand that the exemption provision was on an age basis, not on the basis of whether or not a particular child was continuing at school. I do not think there is any case for changing this provision for the kind of children he has in mind. There are special arrangements for the chronic sick, and also provisions for exemption in the case of hardship.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that some school children have to stay on well after the age of 15 until the end of the term, and that one child in my constituency was in court on Monday of this week for

this very reason? Might there not be a case for suggesting that the period should be not necessarily until 14 to 16 but until the last legal day they must stay on at school?

Mr. Millan: There are considerable complications involved. The last legal day until which a child has to stay on at school is not a particular birthday but depends on the incidence of leaving dates. I know the motives and feelings behind this question, but I do not think the case for a change has been made out.

Mr. Sillars: Would the Minister take the point that the only real way to rid the system of anomalies is to abolish prescription charges altogether?

Mr. Millan: I take the point, but that is a rather wider question which we have debated on many occasions.

Transport Croup (Charges)

Mr. Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis he approves charges made by the Scottish Transport Group on different routes.

Mr. Ross: I approve charges only in respect of sea services operated by David MacBrayne Limited, on the basis set out in clause 19 of the undertaking with the company made in accordance with the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960.

Mr. Noble: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his, to use a commercial term, remarkable shelf life in his present job. Why is he dealing only with Messrs. MacBrayne and allowing charges to one of my more prosperous islands to be exactly one third of the cost per mile to one of my less prosperous islands? This does not make sense to my constituents or to me.

Mr. Ross: I begin to wonder and realise why the right hon. Gentleman is on the shelf. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh!"] The distance to be travelled or the time taken to cover it are not by any means the only factors to be taken into account in fixing the charges on particular routes. These include the total costs of operating the service and the volume of traffic.

Mr. Noble: That is a very unsatisfactory answer.

Highland Development Board

Mr. Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what calculations he has made of the effects of the Budget on the work of the Highland Development Board.

Mr. Ross: The reduction in Bank Rate, the permitted increase in bank lending for productive investment in agriculture and manufacturing industry, and the increase in the initial allowance for industrial building in development areas should provide useful additional incentives to industry in the Highlands.

Mr. Noble: Has the Secretary of State made any calculation as to why the large increases in cost of living and the costs of unit production are much greater in the Highlands than in other parts of Scotland? Is he not aware that this is the major problem of the Highland Development Board in trying to attract new work there?

Mr. Ross: I appreciate and welcome the right hon. Member's interest in the work of the Highland Development Board, since it was not always evident in the early days. If he looks at the reports produced by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, despite considerable difficulties—and one should not underestimate the difficulties of these remote areas —they have been making considerable progress. In relation to the Budget, I think it will be very helpful.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) described the Act under which the board was established as a Marxist measure? Is it to be presumed that he is now supporting the progress of Marxism in the Scottish Highlands?

Mr. Ross: I cannot answer for the right hon. Gentleman and his conversion to support of the Highland Development Board, but no doubt he will remember that I described his criticisms as emanating rather from Groucho Marx.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the greatest factors affecting the Highlands is transport costs, and that a large proportion of these results from taxation, and what is he going to do about it?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to make a speech on that point, as did his right hon. Friend, during the Budget debate.

Land Commission (Betterment Levy)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to date to public funds of attempts by the Land Commission to secure payment of betterment levy in cases where it ultimately proved necessary to abandon assessments owing to inability to pay.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Then I suggest the Minister should find out. Is it not absurd that this body should try to extract £800 in betterment levy from some of my constituents, who had to sell an asset at a £5,000 loss, when the only result of proceeding with this assessment will be a bankrupt company without getting a penny for the Land Commission? Can he not now stop this absurd procedure before we abolish the Land Commission altogether?

Dr. Mabon: There is no intention to abolish the Land Commission. The next Government, which we will form, will not abolish it. There are six cases in all referred to in Scotland. I cannot give the figures because separate records are not available. We are in correspondence on the particular case to which he has referred. The direct costs of the Commission in assessing and collecting levy in Scotland in 1969–70 were 2s. 5d. per £1 of the land assessed. The ratio of cost to return has shown steady improvement since the commission was set up, and we hope that further improvement will come about. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask us to give a general power to the commission to exempt anyone from a legal liability. He is trying to postulate a peculiarly un-British doctrine.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Private Beaches (Public Access)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what


extent the public are denied access to the foreshore and seaside beaches by virtue of private ownership of such land; and what steps he intends to take to remedy this situation.

Mr. Ross: Public rights to the foreshore in respect of navigation, white fishing and recreation remain even where it is privately owned. But it is in the public interest that these rights should be fortified by ownership of the foreshore remaining with the Crown. I hope that an Amendment recently made to the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Bill will assist the Crown Estate Commissioners to protect their ownership rights in the foreshore.

Mr. Hamilton: The answer is all very well as far as it goes and is welcome, but will my right hon. Friend undertake to exempt the terms of a lease granted by the Fife County Council to a private developer in North Queensferry, which has had the effect of excluding not only local residents but also tourists from the only accessible part of the foreshore? Is this not intolerable in Conservation Year?

Mr. Ross: I would be happy to examine any relevant matter my hon. Friend sends to me. I am interested in this matter from the point of view that we have noticed a loss to the Crown of foreshore rights by relaxations made a long time ago in respect of prescription. I look forward to seeing this particular lease.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a variety of landlords of all types are restricting the access over their land and so preventing the use of the foreshore? Is it not time that a Labour Government in particular seriously considered giving the residents of the Highlands a right to fish in rivers without all the bother to which they are put?

Mr. Ross: The last part involves another question altogether, but the question of access is important to Scotland. I have no evidence to suggest that this is a major problem, but I should be glad to look at any such evidence. The hon. Lady will be aware that we have set up the Countryside Commission to ensure the extension of access not just to beaches but elsewhere to the public generally.

Housing Subsidies

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average weekly increase in council house rents needed for existing dwellings, in shillings, on the basis that housing subsidies in Scotland as a whole are abolished, excepting old people's accommodation; and what is the estimated weekly increase needed to offset the subsidy on dwellings under construction on 1st January, 1970.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: For existing houses about 12s. a week, and for houses under construction on 1st January about 3s. a week on all local authority houses; but the increase in a particular area or for a particular tenant might differ widely from the average.

Mr. Hunter: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if the policies of the Opposition on housing subsidies were ever implemented council house tenants would be faced with intolerable financial burdens in future?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, I do very much, and there is an obligation on the Opposition to make their policies quite clear.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Surely the Minister of State realises that the whole tenor of that supplementary question is based on a pure hypothesis? Would he not agree that the best way to spend money on housing is to spend more on those in need and to help them more than is being done at the moment?

Dr. Mabon: These may be impure policies of the Opposition, but hardly pure ones. The hon. Member should read the leader of the Progressive Conservative Alliance's speech to see once again how his policies are being taken as a basis for the view that it is the intention of the Opposition, if ever they get power, to try to alter these subsidies in the adverse way reflected by this Question.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Is the Minister of State aware that what is in this Question is unrelated to the policy of any known political party? Is the Minister now taking the opportunity of again ringing a doorbell and running away?

Dr. Mabon: My objection is not to ringing doorbells but to finding them, for


there are 3,000 short in Erskine and we would like to have more houses there. The Opposition have suggested reforms in housing finance which they have spelled out to their supporters to such an extent that they believe various things will happen, as reflected adversely in my hon. Friend's Question.

Housing Authorities (Mortgages)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing authorities in Scotland at present do not make mortgage advances; and if he will take steps to encourage them to do so.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The councils of five counties, three large burghs and 101 small burghs have made no mortgage advances in recent years. A circular has been sent to all housing authorities drawing their attention to the recently-announced increase in the amount available for this purpose in 1970–71.

Mr. Hunter: Would not my hon. Friend agree that every reasonable opportunity should be taken to encourage private house ownership? Will the recent reductions in Bank Rate enable local authorities to improve and make more attractive the mortgage advance scheme?

Dr. Mabon: I certainly agree with both points. Unfortunately, some of the authorities concerned have not reacted as well as we would like them to. Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) would agree to speak to Nairn on this matter, and to some of his small burghs which are delinquent, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) may speak to Stirling burgh, where the Nationalists are in control.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister of State aware that I am very pleased to hear that he is taking steps to encourage local authorities to make use of mortgage facilities? Will he also take steps to encourage them to make generous loan agreements with housing associations which need close co-operation with local authorities?

Dr. Mabon: I agree with that. In the general review of housing finance which we are conducting, we want to take into

account experience on housing associations, particularly of co-ownership schemes.

New Hospitals

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new hospitals have been built in Scotland since the inception of the National Health Service; and if he will list the names of the hospitals and the year they were built.

Mr. Millan: Since 1948 25 major hospital projects have been built in Scotland which in view of their comprehensive nature can be considered to be new hospitals or their equivalent. I am publishing a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Eadie: Since my hon. Friend is aware that the National Health Service was instituted about 21 years ago, can he say how many hospitals have been built during the last five or six years under this Government?

Mr. Millan: I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that of the 25 I have mentioned built since 1948, no fewer than 17 were completed in the years from 1965 to 1969.

Mr. Noble: How many were started?

Mr. Millan: A jolly sight more than were started in the whole of the years in which hon. Members opposite were in office.

Following is the list:

NEW HOSPITALS



Year completed


Northern Region


Belford Hospital, Fort William
1965


Portree Hospital, Skye
1965


Craig Phadrig Hospital, Inverness
1969


North Eastern Region


Gilbert Bain Hospital, Lerwick
1961


Seafield Hospital, Buckie
1964


Fraserburgh Hospital
1968


Ladysbridge Hospital, Banff (in several phases)
1969


Eastern Region


Strathmartine, Dundee
1964


Dundee Dental Hospital and School
1968


South Eastern Region


Randolph Wemyss Hospital, Fife
1963


Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (in two main phases)
1967


Liberton Hospital, Edinburgh
1968


Lynebank Hospital, Dunfermline
1968


Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, Eye Pavilion
1969

Year completed


Western Region


Vale of Leven Hospital, Alexandria
1955


Ross Hospital, Paisley
1956


Bellshill Maternity Hospital
1962


Queen Mother's Maternity Hospital, Glasgow
1964


Cowglen Hospital, Glasgow
1966


Dunoon General Hospital
1966


Islay Hospital, Bowmore
1966


Lightburn Hospital, Glasgow, Geriatric unit
1967


Paisley Maternity Unit
1969


Glasgow Dental Hospital and School
1969


Cresswell Maternity Hospital
1969

National Health Service (Expenditure)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total sum spent in Scotland on the National Health Service since its inception; and how much has been spent each year since 1965 to the nearest available date.

Mr. Millan: About £1,880 million to 31st March, 1969. The expenditure over the last four years of this period was as follows:

1965–66 £137 million, 1966–67 £153 million, 1967–68 £167 million, 1968–69 £181 million.

Mr. Eadie: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the decision taken by the Scottish Trades Union Congress yesterday to give a full backing to Labour and a Labour Government appears justified in the light of the figures he has given? Can he tell the House whether the Prime Minister has been informed about those figures, since he is addressing the Scottish Trades Union Congress today?

Mr. Millan: I am not sure about the last point but perhaps I could send my right hon. Friend a telegram. Just to point the contrast with £181 million for 1968–69, I should point out that in the last full year for which hon. Members opposite have responsibility, 1963–64, the figure was only £111 million.

Mr. Younger: Will the Under-Secretary point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) that it is not surprising to find the Labour Party supported by the S.T.U.C. in view of the fact that it not only forms the greatest part of but controls the Labour Party?

Grant-Aided Schools

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held regarding the future of the grant-aided schools; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the Public School Commission Report on Grant-aided Schools in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: I am not yet in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edwin M. Taylor) on 15th April.—[Vol. 799, c. 1386–7.]

Mr. Brewis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Education and Science in England and Wales that local authorities which send pupils to similar schools in England obtain a very good bargain? Why does he want to destroy these schools?

Mr. Millan: I am not aware that any local education authority in Scotland sends any pupils to grant-aided schools except for a number of local arrangements which affect a very small number of pupils and where the local school provides part of the secondary school education concerned.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend accept that there has been a wide welcome in Scotland for the report, which points the way to the ending of the present anomalous situation in which public money is used to support a small privileged élite of schools whose activities are quite incompatible with comprehensive education and whose continued survival hinders the progress of the majority of children in the interests of preserving so-called advantages for a few?

Mr. Millan: I agree that it is a very valuable report and there are anomalies in the present situation but I am not able to add very much to that at the moment.

Mr. MacArthur: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will remain


in the position of not being in a position to say anything more about this damaging proposal?

Mr. Millan: No, Sir. I think the proposals are worthy of consideration, and we shall be giving our reactions to them as soon as we have considered them.

Angling (River Purification Boards)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work carried out by river purification boards on fishing matters including the participation in stocking and fishing management programmes presently undertaken by the Clyde Angling Association.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: River purification boards are primarily responsible for preventing pollution. I understand, however, that the Clyde Board gives advice to fishing associations on fish rearing and stocking.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while we recognise that the river purification boards are functioning very well on the east coast of Scotland and, with the appropriate officers, had to do so because of the value of the salmon fisheries there, on the west coast of Scotland last year 30,000 dead seagulls were picked up most of which on examination were shown to have died through the effects of pollution? Is he aware that this is increasing on the west coast of Scotland and that river purification boards there are practically non-existent and there is only one purification officer known to me and he was recently appointed by Glasgow Corporation.

Dr. Mabon: I would be very glad to comment on the latter part of the question when we reach Question 46. Sticking strictly to the terms of Question No. 30, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Clyde and the Ayrshire boards employ biologists to measure the quality of the river waters in terms of animal and plant life and other bodies have the advantage of advice of the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory at Pitlochry. If he has other points to make in correspondence, I will answer them.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that Answer I shall

present my hon. Friend with the other points on an Adjournment Motion.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware of the great concern felt by anglers about the pollution of the River Ayr by the National Coal Board in recent months? Will he say what he proposes to do about the representations made to him on this subject?

Dr. Mabon: That is an entirely different question, but I will willingly correspond with the hon. Gentleman about it. In fairness, I cannot answer matters raised on Question 30 which are dealt with in later Questions today and Questions put down for later dates.

Fishing Industry

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the progress made in the fishing industry in Scotland with regard to catching power; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: I am reasonably satisfied with the steady growth overall in the weight and value of the Scottish catch.

Mr. Baker: Will the Minister say what specific proposals he has for increasing commercial fishing by the Scottish fishing fleet, particularly in relation to the letter which I recently sent to him?

Mr. Buchan: I have received a large number of letters from the hon. Gentleman in the last few days, and I do not know which one he is referring to. [Laughter.] I mean this genuinely. The White Fish Authority has launched a publicity scheme which will help on the market side, and our increase of grants and loans on vessels to the 90 per cent. level should help on the catching side.

Warfarin-Resistant Rodents

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to prevent the spread of Warfarin-resistant rodents in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: Under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 local authorities have a general responsibility in this matter. My Department has given local authorities advice on the problem of


Warfarin resistance after undertaking field investigations and research. A further investigation is planned of the extent of the area of resistance and of the effect of the counter-measures adopted by the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Baker: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that Warfarin has been a considerable factor in keeping down the rodent population, particularly on farms, and will he ensure that research continues into a chemical preparation to take the place of Warfarin if resistance becomes a major factor in Scotland?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, one cannot predict that far ahead, but research is continuing, and I have already discussed with the hon. Member some of the problems involved. I have noted the point.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the powers of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act are sufficient, and say what his Department is doing to encourage local authorities to meet this problem?

Mr. Buchan: We have made an assessment of the position. In Scotland it is suggested that the best way to tackle this is to reduce the number of rats within the area of resistance. With that method of handling—it is rather different in other parts of the United Kingdom—it is better to involve local authorities, and we are working very closely with them on the general policy.

Dundee (Jute Industry)

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern in Dundee about employment prospects there, due to the run-down of the jute industry; and if he will take steps to provide more job opportunities in Dundee.

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and I are keeping in the closest touch with the problems of the jute industry, and there will be no relaxation of the Government's efforts, already producing valuable results, in encouraging new industrial growth and expansion in the Dundee area.

Mr. Doig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of jobs in the jute

industry have recently been lost and that thousands more will be lost in the near future before the industry settles down to a new lower level? There is, therefore, urgent need to provide new employment in this area now or in the immediate future.

Mr. Ross: Yes, I am aware of the difficulties of the jute industry, but it is only fair to say that the industry itself has responded to the challenge of change and has done some diversification. My hon. Friend should not be too despondent about it; the unemployment rate in Dundee is still below the Scottish average. We are very much alive to the present problems and, as my hon. Friend knows, Dundee's needs have certainly not been ignored by this Government in the past five years.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Secretary of State aware of the pledge given on behalf of the Prime Minister that jute jobs would be safeguarded under a Labour Government? Since the Prime Minister seems reluctant to do so, will the Secretary of State make it clear that this was a lightly-given promise and not a firm pledge?

Mr. Ross: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply he received from the Prime Minister.

Local Authorities (Decision making)

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek powers to enable him to review decisions by local authorities, particularly those made by committees, which are not subject to the approval of the local council.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir. Within their statutory powers local authorities have discretion to take their own decisions and to delegate decision-making to their committees. I would not think it right to seek to restrict their discretion.

Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Dundee recently 29 new houses built to standard building regulations were liable to be knocked down simply because a committee of the corporation, not the corporation itself, had power to take such a decision? Does not he feel that there should be a fall-back power to the Secretary of State in exceptional cases to avoid this stupidity?

Dr. Mahon: My hon. Friend has great experience of local government and was a distinguished treasurer for the City of Dundee, but, as he knows, the buildings authority in Dundee is composed of elected members, nominated by the local authority and is an independent body created by the Buildings (Scotland) Act. The point he makes is a fair one, and I shall look into the matter in view of the progress of legislation elsewhere.

Alcohol and Crimes and Road Accidents

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek powers to obtain from brewers and distillers financial contributions for research into the question of an association between the consumption of alcohol and crimes of violence and fatal road accidents.

Mr. Buchan: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: I appreciate the difficulty of persuading the brewers and distillers to finance research into this problem, as they are so busy financing the Tory Party, but, since there is a prima facie case for a close relationship between the consumption of alcoholic liquor and crimes of violence, will my hon. Friend try to persuade a university to undertake research into this important matter?

Mr. Buchan: Certain universities are studying this. I accept that there is not only a prima facie case but a well-known link in terms both of violence and of road accidents. I do not know what end product could come out of research except the advice, " Don't drive and drink ". But all those who are involved in this know that there is a strong connection.

Shell Fish Industry

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what economic information the Government have obtained in relation to the shell fish industry.

Mr. Buchan: Detailed information is published each year in my Department's Reports on the Fisheries of Scotland and in the Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistical Tables. 1969 was a record year with landings of £3·6 millions—more than double the value of the catch in 1964.

Mr. Wohige-Gordon: Is not it unfair for a Government to say to any industry, particularly this one, that they have enough information to take a special levy from the industry, while doing nothing in return, and providing no subsidy comparable to that accepted by the rest of the fishing industry?

Mr. Buchan: As I have pointed out to him before, the hon. Gentleman has this wrong. There is no relationship between the levy on the one hand and the subsidy on the other. The shell fish industry, like any other sea fishing industry, receives benefit from the research and development work of the White Fish Authority, and it is appropriate that the industry should contribute to that authority.

Land Ownership

Mrs. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to limit the number of acres which any one person can own in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: No, Sir.

Mrs. Ewing: Is it in accordance with Labour Party principles that a person should be able to own 200,000 acres of Scotland and more, and put most of it to almost no use? Where is there a sense of justice, efficiency and responsibility in this intolerable situation?

Mr. Buchan: I am sure that this will be repeated by many of my hon. Friends and, perhaps, more pithily expressed. We have established in the Highlands area the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and measures are open to us. Also, in our proposals for feudal reform, developments which have been held back in the past by feudal superiors will be made possible by submission to the Lands Tribunal.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend say how many private landowners support the S.N.P?

Highlands and Islands (Freight Charges)

Mrs. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a committee to investigate ways of alleviating the hardship caused by heavy freight charges to the Highlands and Islands.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) on 21st April.—[Vol. 800, c. 81–2]

Mrs. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Norwegian Government's policy has doubled Norway's northern population from 200,000 to 400,000 over the period during which the Westminster policy of successive British Governments has managed to halve the population of the Scottish Highlands and Islands? Does not he think that the Highland people should be congratulated on clinging to their way of life against the clearances of yesterday and the centralisation of today? Is it not time that the Government and others stopped punishing Highlanders by promises which do not help them? Is it not also time to deal with freight charges which raise the already-too-high prices in Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: It is time the hon. Lady read yesterday's HANSARD, which states clearly that discussions are going on between the Scottish Transport Group, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Office. The S.T.G. only acquired its holding in MacBraynes in July last year. The suggestions of the board are much more constructive than the hon. Lady's. These tripartite discussions are the way in which we can get the pattern of services and charges which is essential to the well-being of the northern and western islands of Scotland—which is, indeed, more important to them than anything else.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (SAFETY OF BRITISH SUBJECTS AND PROPERTY)

Sir Alec Douglas-Home (by Private Notice): Sir Alec Douglas-Home (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the safety of British persons and property in Trinidad and Tobago.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): Our High Commission is in touch with the United Kingdom community in Trinidad and Tobago. No reports have been received of incidents involving injury to the lives and property of United Kingdom nationals.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman cannot at this short notice give an account of what has happened there, but no doubt he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will keep us informed should there be any danger to British subjects.

Mr. Thomson: We are watching watching developments in Trinidad and Tobago, especially as they affect United Kingdom nationals, very closely, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman immediately an assurance that we will keep the House fully informed.
The background to the situation is that there have been a series of Black Power riots in Port of Spain for some weeks. There has also been the threat of a general strike. Against this background, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago—which, I remind the House, has been an independent member of the Commonwealth since 1962—declared a state of emergency and, with the loyal support of the police force, are endeavouring to control the disorder. Some of the leaders of the troubles have already been placed under detention.

Mr. John Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that unemployment is about 30 per cent. in Trinidad and Tobago among the under-24 age group, a situation which has itself created difficulties? Will my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Overseas Development do all they can to bring more employment to this very large young labour force?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend raises wider questions, of which we are very much aware. We are aware of the general background in the islands but that is the responsibility of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. Our responsibility in the present situation of anxiety is to take all necessary and practicable steps to safeguard the lives of United Kingdom nationals.

Mr. Marten: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Army is being loyal to the Government?

Mr. Thomson: I understand that there have been reports of mutinies amongst some elements of the Trinidad and Tobago Regiment. That is why


we are taking all the necessary and practicable steps to look after the safety of United Kingdom nationals.

Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us—no doubt including himself—who were in Trinidad for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference only a few months ago will very much regret this very disturbing series of events? Will he inform the Trinidad Government that any request for help from Her Majesty's Government, particularly in face of any difficulties in respect of the Army, will be sympathetically considered?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend and I have perhaps a special personal reason for concern about these developments. We are keeping in close and continuous touch with Dr. Williams and his Government.

BILLS PRESENTED

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

Mr. Secretary Stewart, supported by Mrs. Judith Hart, Mr. Dick Taverne, Mr. Evan Luard, and Mr. Elystan Morgan, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to customs duty on hydrocarbon oils for the benefit of persons entitled to privileges under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 or the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966, and to amend the International Organisations Act 1968 by including the Caribbean Development Bank among the organisations to which section 1 applies and by making further provision under section 2 with respect to vehicle excise duty: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

PROTECTION OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY

Mr. Chichester-Clark, supported by Lord Hamilton, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Captain Orr, and Mr. Michael Noble, presented a Bill to protect the person and property by penalising the making or possession or use of certain devices containing an inflammable liquid or substance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8th May and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

EDUCATION BILL

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the debate on the Recommittal Motion and the Instruction on the Order Paper—
That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted to the former Committee,
and
That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee A that, notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect.—
I understand that the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) wishes to raise a point of order.

3.35 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I wish to raise points of order arising from the fact that we are facing a situation which has never faced the House before in so far as there is no precedent for the effective Clauses of a Government Bill being struck out in Committee. All the 11 precedents which there are refer to Private Members' Bills and none of these was proceeded with. There are, therefore, two sets of precedents: first, that there is no precedent for a Government Bill; and, secondly, that there is no precedent for a Recommittal Motion or Instruction of the kind now on the Order Paper.
I therefore suggest, for your convenience, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, that I refer to all the points of order for your guidance as they affect both Motions at the beginning of the debate, although I understand that the debate will thereafter proceed on the two Motions separately.
The first point on which I wish to seek your guidance concerns the first Motion on the Order Paper:
 That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted to the former Committee ".
This is the Recommittal Motion and the first question is whether it is governed by Standing Order No. 52. You will be aware that, if this Motion is governed by Standing Order No. 52, then speeches upon it are restricted to two speeches of 10 minutes each, one from the Government side and one from the Opposition.
I submit that Standing Order No. 52 does not apply and I also, of course, submit, in general, that the points of order


I am raising now are far wider than those which apply to the Education Bill. They are points of order of general impact which will affect all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I submit that Standing Order No. 52 does not apply for the following reasons. First, it applies only to a recommittal of a Bill as a whole. Its opening words are:
 If a motion to recommit a bill as a whole…
and it then goes on to say what happens. The Motion before the House does not say that the Education Bill as a whole be recommitted. It does not even say that the Education Bill " be recommitted ". It says:
 That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted.
The phrase " so far as amended " must therefore mean something different from the Bill as a whole. It comes from a Motion at the ninth sitting—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order, and a serious one.

Mrs. Thatcher: It comes from a Motion at the ninth sitting of Standing Committee A, namely:
 That the Chairman do report the Bill, so far as amended, to the House ".
That Motion did not refer specifically to the Bill as a whole. It refers to the Bill " so far as amended ", and I submit that this is less than the Bill. What is left of the Bill—that is to say, the bit that is " so far as amended "—cannot equal the phrase used in Standing Order No. 52,
…a bill as a whole…
and the Bill as a whole is the only Bill which can be obtained today from the Vote Office.
There is no Bill as amended by Standing Committee A. Nor is there any Bill " so far as amended " by Standing Committee A. The only Bill which we have is the whole Bill consisting of Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4, and this is not the Bill " so far as amended " to which the first Motion on the Order Paper refers.
Erskine May, on page 569, of the 1964 edition, says:
 The limitation of the motion to a partial recommittal of the bill, or the inclusion of

any matter other than that necessary for recommittal removes the motion from the scope of the standing order and the restriction on the number of speakers is not enforced ".
It refers to a precedent in the footnote—House of Commons Debates (1924), Vol. 176—which I have checked and in which there were seven speeches on the Recommittal Motion.
The second reason why I submit that Standing Order No. 52 does not apply is that these events are outside its scope and that it would be using it for a purpose outside the intentions of the House when it was created.
Erskine May, on page 569, refers to the Select Committee on House of Commons Procedure in 1914 and to Question 2,410 to the then Clerk of the House. That Question was as follows:

In regard to the recommitment of Bills I understand you think some check might be put upon motions to that effect?

The answer from the then Clerk of the House was:
 That also was a suggestion which the Speaker asked me to make … The only case in which the recommitment of a Bill is really necessary is where it is desirable to insert a money provision which cannot be inserted at the Report stage. I think we have observed in recent times a tendency to multiply motions to recommit, and I am inclined to think you may safely invest Mr. Speaker with a discretionary power as to accepting or rejecting such motions.

Two points arise from that about the scope of Standing Order No. 52. First, that a Recommittal Motion is only moved, or should only be moved, in cases where something cannot be done on Report. According to the Leader of the House last Thursday, this could be done on Report. He referred to that matter at c. 1577.

The second point is that the Standing Order came into existence because there were too many Motions to recommit and it was desired to cut down the number. Today, we are dealing with a case for which there is no precedent whatsoever. Therefore, it would be desirable to hear from as many senior Members of the House as possible upon this very novel procedure.

Those are the two submissions that I make on Standing Order No. 52.

The second of my points of order—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Thatcher: —is on the part of the Recommittal Motion which refers to " the former Committee ". I submit, Mr. Speaker, that " the former Committee " has now no existence. This was terminated by the Committee's acceptance of the Motion moved by the Minister. At the end of that we did not even need to have a Motion to adjourn. No notice, in accordance with the sittings Motion, has appeared on the Order Paper. I suggest that " the former Committee " has ceased to exist.
I have looked at precedents on " former " committees. All of them refer to the dates when the Standing Committee was in continuous existence with a nucleus of Members. These days Standing Committees are virtually Bill Committees and have no continuous existence. Therefore, we should be in grave difficulty in recommitting to a " former " Committee if it does not exist, because we should not know how next to proceed.
I then move in my points of order to the Instruction Motion, which is the one in italics before the House today. I submit, for the following reasons, that the Instruction Motion is out of order and cannot be debated. Erskine May, on page 537, points out—

Mr. William Hamilton: Which edition?

Mrs. Thatcher: The 1964 edition. It is the only one that we can get in the House, if hon. Members are fortunate enough to get their hands on one at all. Erskine May has been in great demand these last few days.
Erskine May, on page 537, points out that since Standing Order No. 42, which acts as a general instruction to Committees, the number of occasions when it is necessary to widen the powers of a Committee by an Instruction has been reduced and the Rulings of the Chair much more restricted than formerly. It gives seven sets of circumstances in which instructions are admissible.

Mr. William Hamilton: Let us have them all.

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman will get them all, if he will permit me to give them.
First, extension of objects within the scope of the Bill; secondly, extension of

area; thirdly, division of a Bill into two or more Bills; fourthly, consolidation of two Bills into one; fifthly, priority to the consideration of a portion of a Bill; sixthly, power to hear counsel; and, seventhly, a reference to a mandatory Instruction, which does not affect the Instruction before us. Those are the seven groups of Instruction which are admissible.
I submit that this Instruction does not fall into any of those categories. If, therefore, the Instruction is in order, we are creating a new category of admissible Instruction, which is an extremely important thing for the House to do. Moreover, the category which we should be creating would purport to give a Committee instructions to repeat consideration of something which it has already considered.
I submit that this is basically contrary to the rules of the House which are used every day against repetition. Indeed, Standing Order No. 22, on irrelevance and repetition in the House, is applied by Standing Order No. 59(5) to Committees. To use an Instruction for this purpose has never been done, and it is a matter of grave principle with implications far wider than the Bill, for which it is merely the occasion.
Moreover, in Committee, if this were to be done, the Chairman would be faced, on the one hand, with Standing Orders against repetition, on the other, with a permissive Instruction for repetition, and, thirdly, with Standing Order No. 33(2) telling him to treat an Instruction and a Motion to recommit as an Amendment. I submit that this Instruction is not admissible.
Erskine May then goes on to classify five categories of inadmissible instructions. The first, which does not affect us, is that the Instruction is outside the scope of the Bill. I mention it only to reject it.
The second group of inadmissible Instructions are superfluous instructions. As whoever put down the Motion has chosen to recommit, if he may, to " the former Committee ", he can only be conferring on that Committee powers with regard to considering Clause 1 of the Bill which it already possessed at the outset under Standing Order No. 42. The only additional power which he would be conferring by an Instruction of a repetitive


kind would be to reconsider what it had already power to consider. I submit, therefore, that the Instruction is out of order on the ground that it would be superfluous.
The relevant passage in Erskine May appears at page 542:
 An instruction is superfluous and therefore out of order if it seeks to confer upon the committee power … already possessed by the committee under the provisions of Standing Order No. 42.
The next two categories of inadmissible Instructions do not apply. They are, " Impracticable division of bill ", and " Deletion of part of bill ".
I come, now, to what I believe to be the most important point of order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is listening to a very serious submission.

Mrs. Thatcher: The most important point of order on the Instruction concerns the fifth category, where Erskine May says that
an instruction is inadmissible if it is not specific.
I submit that this Instruction is not specific. Erskine May says:
 An instruction is out of order unless it is drawn in clear and specific terms, so that the committee may understand definitely what provisions the House desires that they should take into consideration.
It follows that with three precedents. The Motion on the Instruction says:
…notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill …
The only Question put to the Standing Committee was:
 That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th April, 1970; c. 322.]
Clause 1, as amended, was materially different from Clause 1. The Question on Clause 1 was never put to the Committee, and I believe could not be put, and the Committee could not therefore disagree with Clause 1. It is a matter of conjecture what would have happened had it been put, or could have been put. The Instruction therefore refers to an event which did not happen, and rests—I am grateful to the Chief Secretary—upon that non-event.
The Instruction continues:
…they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect.

Like effect to what? The Committee disagreed to Clause 1, as amended, but it had no opportunity to disagree to Clause 1. It cannot be Clause 1, as amended, because that is not what the Instruction says, and in any event the provisions in Clause 1, as amended, were radically different from the provisions in Clause 1. I submit, therefore, that the Instruction is out of order because it is not clear; alternatively, because it is null and void, as it depends upon an event which did not happen, and could not have happened.
I turn to the relevant precedents. The first one is the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, 1st June, 1896, in which case an Instruction was ruled out of order for the following reasons. The Instruction was on the Order Paper, and the then Speaker said:
 There are on the paper two Instructions, the first standing in the name of the hon. Member, Yarmouth Division. That is out of order. It is of the highest importance that Instructions should be perfectly clear in their terms, that the Committee may understand definitely what provisions the House desires that it should take into consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1896; c. 977.]
As the Instruction gives no information to the Committee what the provisions are which the House desires it should take into consideration, I think that the Instruction is bad for want of clearness and definite direction.
The second precedent mentioned in Erskine May is the Education (Scotland) Bill, 21st July, 1897. There, an Instruction came before the House, and Mr. Speaker, referring to the first Instruction, said that it
 is out of order in the first place, on the ground that it proposes to instruct the Committee to repeal ' part of Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act 1876'. To be in order it should be clear and specific, and should indicate expressly to the Committee what part of the section it is proposed that it should deal with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1897; c. 641.]
That Instruction was also out of order.
The third and final one in which the Instruction was out of order because it was not specific was the Marriage with Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, 12th February, 1902, in which Mr. Speaker, ruling immediately on an Instruction, said:
 That Instruction is out of order, because think, in the first place, an Instruction to


the Committee ought, on the face of it, to state plainly and clearly what further alterations in the law the Committee are to consider …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1902; c. 1112.]
This Instruction is neither clearly one thing, nor clearly the other. Indeed, it is not clear, and hinges upon an event which did not happen.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the submissions which I wish to make, and I am grateful to you for your patience.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would help the House if I ruled on the detailed submissions which the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has made, after which I shall be willing to hear further points of order.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, you may be enlightened by hearing further points of order before you give your Ruling, or your judgment might be influenced by them.
I begin with an apology, in that I have to take the Chair at a meeting of the Trustees of the Members' Fund at 4.15, and I may, therefore, not be present to hear your Ruling.
I want to raise a simple point. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said about the Instruction. The recommittal procedure is, surely, an abuse of the process of the House. The whole of our recommittal procedure was designed so that something could be done in. Committee which could not be done on Report, and it does not apply here at all. It was designed particularly so that Finance Bills could be recommitted, or something could be done in Committee with the approval of the House which could not be done on Report. I submit that to use this procedure for this Bill is an abuse of the procedure of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would help if I made a careful Ruling on the points which the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has put to me and to the House. I thank her, first, for her courtesy in letting me know the general line that she intended to raise in the points of order that she was put-

ting on a day which, in her own words, has no exact precedent.
The first Motion must be considered in the light of the provisions of Standing Order No. 52, which relates to the recommittal of a Bill. I think that it would help the House if I read again the whole Standing Order. It says:
 If a motion to re-commit a bill as a whole be opposed, Mr. Speaker shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for such re-committal from the Member who moves and from a Member who opposes any such Motion respectively, and shall then without permitting further debate put the question thereon.
The phrase,
 the Education Bill, so far as amended,
in the Motion means the whole Bill, with all the Amendments which the Committee has made, up to the point where it decided not to proceed further with the Bill. The usual phrase is " the Bill as amended ", which the Committee uses when reporting to the House on completing its consideration and amendment of the Bill. But in both instances the House is put in possession of the entire Bill, with such Amendments as have been made. The only difference is that in the first case the Committee's work is incomplete.
I have decided that the Motion does fall within the ambit of Standing Order No. 52 and that, therefore, I am permitted to call only one Member to speak for and one Member against the Motion. This is on the first part of the hon. Lady's submission. I would emphasise that the statements on each side according to this Standing Order must be brief and that, if the House desires, a Division may follow.
The second Motion on the Order Paper is an Instruction which, of course, can be called only if the first Motion has been agreed to, since it would relate to subsequent proceedings in the event of the Bill being recommitted to the Standing Committee. Under the normal rules of the House, a Committee which has disagreed to a Clause cannot proceed to agree to it or to similar or identical provisions unless specially empowered by the House to do so.
The Instruction is permissive. It may help the House if I briefly summarise the rules on such an Instruction. Debate on a Motion for an Instruction must be


strictly relevant thereto and must not be directed towards the general objects of the Bill to which the Instruction relates, nor may debate on the Instruction anticipate the discussion of any Clause of the Bill. The narrow subject matter of the Instruction is, therefore, whether the Standing Committee should be given the exceptional power of reversing its earlier decision on Clause 1 of the Education Bill. Debate on the merits of the Clause which was disagreed to, or on the subject matter of the Bill itself, would be out of order. I might also remind the House that there is no right of reply by the mover of an Instruction.
The hon. Lady has asked me to comment on the validity of this procedure. It is true that my advisers have been unable to direct my attention to any precedent for the particular proceeding envisaged by the two Motions on the Order Paper. It is not, however, the duty of the Chair to forbid the House from embarking on a course which has no precise precedent. The whole procedure of the House is flexible. Motions to meet unusual circumstances have been tabled before, and, if they are not irregular in form, may be put to the House from the Chair for its decision.
I have given prolonged and careful study to the Motions standing on the Order Paper today and I have also considered all the arguments so clearly put forward by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. I cannot find that there is any irregularity in the Motions which would prevent me from proposing the Questions on them from the Chair.
The hon. Lady also referred to the phrase " the former Committee ". This phrase means the same Standing Committee with the same Chairman and with the same hon. Members which considered the Education Bill after it was first committed on 12th February and which made a special report to the House on 16th April. There are several recent precedents for a Recommittal Motion in these terms, so the point which she has made has no validity.
Finally, on the last point which the hon. Lady made, and a very important one, it is true, as she submitted, that an Instruction is out of order unless the Committee to whom it is directed understands definitely all the provisions which the House desires it to consider. This

Instruction is, of course, permissive. It gives the Committee power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect to Clause 1 of the Education Bill to which it disagreed. I think that the Committee can interpret that Instruction, if it is given, quite clearly. I cannot rule it out of order on the grounds that it is not sufficiently specific.
I have examined all the precedents to which the hon. Lady referred. I have given great consideration to what is a very important issue, which she has raised in a very clear and important way. I have to rule that the two Motions are in order and that the debate can proceed.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for further guidance on one point? The Instruction is
…that, notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect.
What the Committee disagreed with was Clause 1, as amended, which is a very different thing from Clause 1. It is given powers to insert in the Bill provisions " with a like effect "—presumably not powers to insert provisions with a like effect to something else.
To what does " like effect " refer? Is it Clause 1 as originally in the Bill, or Clause 1 as amended?

Mr. Speaker: That will have to be decided by the Committee when it debates Clause 1.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Maudling: I did not quite hear your Ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I said that what the like effect will be is a matter which the Committee will have to debate when it discusses the Clause.

Mr. Maudling: I accept your Ruling on that, Mr. Speaker, but with respect, the point is that it says " like effect ". Like to what? The Committee must judge what is like, but we must judge to what it should be like.

Mr. Speaker: The Instruction is quite clear. It is like effect to Clause 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Angus Maude: Further to that point of order.


With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek your guidance on two points. The first relates to your Ruling, when you said that neither you nor your advisers had been able to find any precedent for using this procedure in a case of this kind. I would submit to you that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has said, this is a quite new and important departure, and possibly a breach of the conventions and traditions of the House. Surely, if something without precedent is to be embarked on by the House in a Bill of this kind, it should be done by changing the Standing Orders first, by Resolution of the House, so as to make action on this Bill possible. That is the right way to do it, not to create a precedent which has the effect of changing the Standing Orders simply by reference to a Resolution on the Education Bill. I submit that this, therefore, is the wrong way to do it.
My second paint is the question of this Motion falling within the ambit of Standing Order No. 52. No one questions the fact that, if this is the committal of a Bill as a whole, it falls within Standing Order No. 52 and you are, therefore, bound to limit the debate in the way that the Standing Order provides. But while I see that it can be argued that what is sought to be recommitted is all that is left of the Bill, I cannot see how the recommittal of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 plus the Preamble and Long Title only can conceivably be said to be the recommittal of the whole Bill. That seems to me plainly a contradiction in terms.
The Bill as a whole was the Bill which passed Second Reading in the House and was orginally committed to Standing Committee A in February. The Bill which is now sought to be recommitted cannot be the Bill as a whole, because it lacks the operative Clause. To use the phrase " the Bill as a whole " must surely in this case be nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled on the second point. On the Motions themselves, this is a matter for the House to decide after debate. All that the Chair can rule on is whether the Motions are in order. I have ruled that they are in order and that the procedure will take the form which I have ruled.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Perhaps I may refer to the same point of order as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), which is about Standing Order No. 52. Erskine May appears to make it clear that Standing Order No. 52 was passed with the object of dealing with Motions to recommit which were, in fact, obstructive and dilatory. It was to restrain that practice that the House passed that Standing Order. It is, therefore, apparently, the first time that the Standing Order has been used in a way which appears to imply that a Motion to recommit by the Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, is of an obstructive and dilatory character.
In these unprecedented circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reconsider your Ruling on the Motion and Instructions, having the two in your mind together rather than considering them entirely separately, because, as my hon. Friend has said, Standing Order No. 52 applies only to a Motion to recommit the whole Bill.
If we consider the Motion in isolation, it could be said, I realise, that the Bill as reported to the House with Clause 1 knocked out is the whole Bill as it stands, but when we also see the Motion for an Instruction which is to authorise a Committee to put back into the Bill provisions which have been struck out, I ask you to look at the substance of the matter; and to recognise that this is, in fact, not a recommital of the whole Bill, but a recommital of a part of the Bill which has then to be supplemented in accordance with the terms of the Instruction. I ask you, therefore, looking at the substance of the matter, because there is no precedent, to rule in that way.
Perhaps I may make just one or two related suggestions. The wording of the Motion betrays the underlying difficulty. It speaks of the Bill " so far as amended ". That is a very strange phrase. If the Motion referred to " the Bill as so far amended " one would understand what that meant; that it referred to the Bill so far as it had been amended in the Standing Committee. That, however, is not what the Motion says. The reference to the Bill " so far as amended " must mean something less than the whole


of the Bill. The use of those words means that it is not the whole Bill, but the Bill so far amended. I confess that I find it rather difficult to understand what is meant by that phrase, but that is because of the inherent difficulty of the subject matter.
Turning now to the Instruction, I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether this is not caught by the rule to be found in page 545 of Erskine May, to the effect that an Instruction may not deal with something which has already been dealt with in the same Session. That cannot, of course, mean something dealt with in a Committee, because this is a Motion in the House, but something that has been dealt with by the House in the same Session. Examples are given in the footnotes.
This is a matter that has been dealt with by the House in the same Session, because the Bill as it passed on Second Reading was committed under the Standing Order, in default of a special Motion, to the Standing Committee, and the Committee then struck out Clause 1. If we consider the Motion and the Instruction together, this is a proposal that the House should do something which it has already done in the present Session. Therefore, the Instruction is, in fact, a repetitive Instruction, and underlines the fact that this is without precedent, because this procedure has never been used for this kind of purpose before, and never should be.
Perhaps I may test the validity of this submission by suggesting that the Standing Committee might, perhaps, do the same thing again. Would it then be in order for the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have enough to discuss on this important question of order without the hon. and learned Gentleman seeking a hypothetical Ruling on something that may happen in the future.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I was only seeking to illustrate my point, which is: if the Bill came back on a second occasion would the procedure also be in order? If not, it cannot be in order on the first occasion that it is repetitive. Therefore, I submit that this point is caught by the ruling in page 545 of Erskine May.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with points as they arise.
I have dealt with all the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman has put before the House, and I have ruled on them in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
As to the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to page 545 of Erskine May, in which Erskine May is talking about the way in which the House cannot go back to matters which have been already decided in the same Session, the simple fact is that that does not apply to a Committee. A House can over-rule something on which a Committee has decided, and, although Erskine May says that matters which have already been decided during the current Session cannot be brought forward by an Instruction, that refers to matters which have already been brought before the House.

Mr. Tom Driberg: With regard to the point twice put from the Opposition Front Bench, that the Committee did not disagree and could not have disagreed with Clause 1, is it not the case that when Clause 1 was amended, as amended it automatically became Clause 1? If that is so, does it not dispose of the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peyton. A point of order.

Mr. John Peyton: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to put it to you that you have not yet replied to the point of order raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). My right hon. and learned Friend suggested to you that this Motion was an abuse of the recommital procedure on the ground that it did not involve doing something which could not be done on Report. I hope, with great respect, that you will rule on that point for the guidance of the House.
I should like also to put the following point to you. It seems to me that although you have ruled today expressly and explicitly that the House is not inhibited from accepting a Motion for which there is no precedent, that in itself involves us in a very serious situation.
The background is, I think, unarguable. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of


the House the other day, with that characteristic modesty and gift for under-statement for which he is well known and well loved, said that a mistake had been made. I think that we would all very warmly agree with that statement. But, that mistake having been made, what I think the House is in some difficulty over is allowing the Government to go to the Clerks of the House and requesting to be salvaged and extricated from their embarrassment. They having enlisted the machinery of the House on their side, there is no protection whatever for the minority—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The second point that the hon. Gentleman is making is a point that he can make in the debate on the Instruction, when the House will have to take a decision.

Mr. Peyton: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
The question which I now wish to put to you, with great respect, is: why are there not two Motions today? You yourself have indicated that this thing which appears on the Order Paper will be put in two bits. Why? It may be, again, that the modesty of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has reasserted itself, and that he does not wish his name to appear twice attached to so disgraceful and shoddy a Motion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debating point, and not a point of order. It is quite in order to have the two Motions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Peyton: That is precisely my point, Mr. Speaker. There appears to be only one Motion, in that the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appear only once, which indicates to me that there is only one Motion on the Order Paper.
Yet from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Motion will be put in two sections. I should like to know whether there is any precedent for a Motion to appear on the Order Paper and for it to be bisected halfway through.
The other points I wished to raise have already been referred to by my hon.

Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), in a most lucid and brilliant submission to you, Mr. Speaker. I can only express my regret that you did not find yourself overwhelmed by the force of her arguments. However, I hope very much that you will remember that the power of the majority in the House changes from time to time. There was a time when, if I may say so with great respect, you, Mr. Speaker, sat on this side of the House as a member of a party —[HON. MEMBERS: " Withdraw "].—which was passionately and very often noisily over a long period of time addicted to espousing the cause of the minority.
I believe that if Parliament goes through with this procedure today it will have taken one more step towards steamrollering and bulldozing the basic rights of the minority on which freedom depends.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might well put his last point in debate. I am sure that he is not suggesting that Mr. Speaker takes any notice of the majority or the minority. It is his job to protect the whole of Parliament. He is not interested in the result of the battle which will take place later. He is in command of the rules of order and must interpret them.

Mr. E. Shinwell: With great respect, will you accept a point of order from this side of the House, Mr. Speaker? I understand that you have given a decision, having listened to the submission of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—[Interruption.] Mind your own business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am minding my own business.

Mr. Shinwell: I listened to what the hon. Lady said and hon. Members opposite might listen to me. Since then several legal luminaries have addressed you, Mr. Speaker, including some who regard themselves as experts. You have given your decision, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether we might adopt a very simple expedient? Having given your Ruling, let the House decide whether it accepts Mr. Speaker's decision or not. Accordingly, I beg to move, That we accept your decision.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One of the rules of order is that when Mr. Speaker is on his feet every other hon. Member sits down.
I am not prepared to accept the Motion of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
I imagine, however, that by now all the points which have been made in support of the submission of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley are covered by my Ruling, except one, of which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) reminded me. I had forgotten to take note of the point of the right hon.and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), about whether this was an abuse of the procedures of the House. That is a matter which the House must decide in its debate, but not as a point of order.

Mrs. Thatcher: There was one point in your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I did not understand and on which I must ask for further clarification. You said that it was for the Committee to decide the meaning of the Instruction. That implies that there is some doubt about the meaning of the Instruction. I read to you three precedents in which there was doubt about the meaning of Instructions and they were out of order.
You, Mr. Speaker, seemed to say that there was some doubt about the meaning of today's Instruction. Therefore, is it not out of order? If not, should we continue the debate in Standing Committee on your authority that there is some doubt about the Instruction, although it is in order?

Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Lady must not put words into the mouth of Mr. Speaker. I have read the three precedents to which she referred, including the operation of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, 1902, and I carefully and categorically ruled on her point about the clarity of the Instruction.
I repeat that the Instruction is permissive. It gives the Committee
 power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect 
to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, to which it disagreed. I think that the Committee can interpret that Instruction if it is given quite clearly. I cannot rule

it out of order on the ground that it is not sufficiently specific.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order. I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He maintained that members of the Government had been able to go to the Clerks for advice about the terms of the Motion, but that hon. Members on this side of the House had been denied like facilities. [HON. MEMBERS: " He did not say that"]. That was the implication of the hon. Member —[HON. MEMBERS: " No."] That was clearly implied in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] As a gross aspersion has been cast on the Clerks, without any foundation—everybody knows that hon. Members on both sides of the House can obtain advice from the Clerks and that they are always ready to help us—I think that the hon. Gentleman should be instructed to withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Speaker: I did not understand the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to say that. Every right hon. and hon. Gentleman knows that the Clerks of the House are the faithful servants of every Member.

Mr. Peyton: May I be allowed to make one point clear, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: On this specific matter.

Mr. Peyton: I never said, nor did I in any way imply, that there was any restriction on the rights of Members to go to the Clerks for advice or on the willingness of the Clerks to give that advice. My attack was against the Government. I want to make it absolutely clear that, despite the wishful thinking of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), there was nothing in what I said which cast any reflection on the servants of the House.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: Is it not a fact that the House as a whole took a decision on the Education Bill in favour of comprehensive education? Is it not also a fact that the Opposition, by cunning, conniving devices sought to defeat the Government—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point which might be made in the debate when we get to it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have specifically ruled on all the issues which were raised. I have not minimised their seriousness. I was asked by the hon. Lady, in a very careful submission, to rule on the two Motions on the Order Paper. The two Motions are in order. The debate on the first one is a procedural one and will contain two speeches. The debate on the second is much wider.

Mr. Maudling: There is still one matter in your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, about which we on this side are in some doubt. We would like you to be kind enough to clear the matter up for us. It is a simple point on which there should be no doubt if the Instruction is to be clear. It is whether the phrase
 Clause 1 of the Education Bill 
means Clause 1 in the original Bill, or Clause 1 as amended. This is a very important point.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will be grateful if the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) goes out of order by interrupting him on a point of order.

Mr. Maudling: Would you be kind enough, Sir, to clarify for us whether in this Instruction, which must be clear and subject to no doubt, as you rightly said, Clause 1 means Clause 1 as originally in the Bill, or Clause 1 as amended by the Standing Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled on this. It is a matter which may be made clear by the Minister when we reach the debate.

Sir Edward Boyle: Mr. Speaker, may I, with the greatest respect, pursue that one more turn, because I was the hon. Member who successfully moved the Amendment to Clause 1 which is now in question? I submit to you that this Amendment had the effect of giving local authorities a wider scope than under the original Clause. It is for this reason that I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr.

Maudling) has said and submit to you that the words
 provisions with a like effect 
are not absolutely clear and that at the very least we should be quite clear what the Instruction to the Committee is.
Is it to insert in the Bill a Clause on the lines of Clause 1 as amended, with that considerably greater freedom to local authorities, or Clause 1 as it left the House after Second Reading? I suggest that we are entitled to ask you, Sir, for a little more clarification on this point.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which will emerge in the debate when we come to the Instruction. Sir David Renton.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No matter how important the occasion, only one hon. Member can address the Chair on a point of order at once.

Sir D. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I may be allowed—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will forgive me—to add yet a third reason why this Instruction lacks clarity when we come to consider the meaning of " like effect ", because my right hon. Friend has already pointed out that it could mean the Clause as it originally stood or the Clause as amended.
The words " like effect " could mean another Clause moved by the Secretary of State in Committee to the same effect, but not in exactly the same form as the Clause which was originally in the Bill. It was for that reason that I somewhat rudely, for which I apologise, sought to interrupt my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet.
I think that this is a very important point for you to consider, Sir, when ruling that this Instruction is as clear an Instruction to the Committee as it might be. In effect, it comes to this—that the Instruction on this point alone could mean any one of three things. I suggest to you, Sir, that we as the House of Commons might not be doing our work well enough—we are creating a precedent and ought, therefore, as has been said, to do it well—if, on this vital point, we put in an Instruction which,


far from being clear, could mean three things.

Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, I have ruled on this. The points that hon. Gentlemen are making now are points they must make in the debate when we come to the Instruction.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Committee which terminated its proceedings and thanked its Chairman on 16th April, I seek your guidance, arising out of the words you used in making your Ruling on the final point of order.
You said that the Committee must understand the Ruling. You went on to say that the Instruction gives power to include provisions to a like effect to Clause 1 to which the Committee had disagreed.
As a member of the Committee, I know very well that there are at least two possibilities that could be applied to the words that you used. The first is that you meant Clause 1 as originally drawn, but that cannot be so, with respect, because it was not as disagreed to in the Committee.
The second alternative is Clause 1 as amended. That is substantially different, because of the banding Amendment referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). That cannot apply, because it is not referred to in the Instruction. I therefore do not know what will be included when we are again in Standing Committee.
As it follows that there is a substantial difference as to what a Clause of like effect would be, I submit that the Instruction is unclear. It is certainly unclear to me. As I understand, precedents have been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). The Instruction, to be valid, must be specific and clear. With respect, unless I can be told which of these two alternatives applies, I cannot understand what the consequence of the Ruling is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has merely repeated with equal clarity one of the submissions made by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. I have ruled on this. I hope that we can proceed. We have much to debate.

Sir Barnett Janner: Mr. Speaker, you have made a Ruling which will in future, I assume, be accepted as a precedent. The House depends upon precedents. You are fully entitled to make a Ruling, if there is no obvious precedent, which will in itself become a precedent.
In the circumstances, is it not a pure waste of time on the part of those who oppose that Ruling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good hon. Members pretending that they are not trying to waste time. What they are doing is wasting time. [HON. MEMBERS: " Withdraw."] I shall not withdraw. Protests of that nature are useless. The country will understand—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir B. Janner: —that it is a pure waste of time, an attempt to impede.
I seek your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. You having given your view on the matter, clearly and categorically, is there any method by which this type of interruption can be stopped, so that we can proceed?

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman says, we are on a point without precedent. [Interruption.] Order. It is also without precedent for hon. Members to interrupt Mr. Speaker. We are on a point which is without precedent. I had to rule very carefully and after much deliberation and much advice, and, after listening to the submissions, I would hope that we could now proceed with the debate before us.

Sir John Foster: On a point of order. I should like to ask for a clarification of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. You ruled—and I accept it for the purpose of this point of order—that the " Education Bill, as amended " was the whole Bill. Therefore, the definition of Clause 1 under that Ruling must be Clause 1 as amended. It cannot be Clause 1 before it was amended. Therefore, I would ask you whether the Instruction is wrongly worded. I quite see what the framer of the Instruction meant. He meant that the Committee had disagreed to the previous Clause 1, and, therefore, it ought to put in " provisions with a like effect " to the previous Clause 1.
As this is an important procedural matter which may set an important precedent, in my submission it must be considered strictly. " Clause 1 of the Education Bill ", in the Instruction sanction, cannot mean the previous Clause 1. The Committee did not disagree to Clause 1, as amended. What it disagreed to was the previous Clause 1. But the Instruction does not say that, and it follows from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the whole Bill is the Bill as amended, that Clause 1 of the whole Bill is the Clause as amended.

Mr. Speaker: We are back on the same topic. I have ruled on the matter. I think that we must proceed.

Sir Douglas Glover: I should like a little clarification Mr. Speaker—and I do sympathise with you in a very difficult position. We are this afternoon creating a precedent. I think that you are well aware of the dangers of creating precedents. As I understand, all that you have ruled is that these two propositions are in order to be on the Order Paper and that it is for the House to reach a decision upon them.
I want to make a submission to you on the first Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Education and Science. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker,that this is in order, but is debateable only under Standing Order No. 52. Further, in your Ruling you have also said that it will be for the House to decide whether this course of action should be carried out or not.
I submit that we are dealing with a new precedent—that is, short-circuiting the Report stage of Bills, because that is what this precedent means—and I submit that this is a matter which ought to be fully debated by the House and that, therefore, it ought to be in order under another Standing Order, not Standing Order No. 52.

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that it comes under Standing Order No. 52 and when we come to it there will be a brief speech made for it and a brief speech against. I am not proposing to vary my Ruling.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would hope that the House would get on to the issues which the House wishes to debate. We are at present discussing submissions on points of order on which Mr. Speaker has ruled. We should move on.

Mr. Maudling: I am sorry to intervene again, Mr. Speaker, but there is one aspect of your Ruling—which, of course, we accept—which is still not entirely clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends. As you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, Instructions must be clear to be in order. We suggested that the Instruction is not clear because no one knows whether Clause 1 means the original Clause 1 or Clause 1, as amended. You suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this might become apparent in the course of the debate. But the debate cannot take place if the Instruction is out of order and the Instruction is out of order if there is no clarity about what the phrase means.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled that the Instruction is in order.

Mr. John Hynd: You referred to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing a new situation without precedent. Are we not now in danger of creating another precedent, because I cannot recall a case where, Mr. Speaker, having given a Ruling, the House could then indulge in a debate and criticise the Ruling of the Chair? Is this not a very dangerous precedent? Are we to take it that from now on hon. Members will have the right to discuss and debate Mr. Speaker's Rulings?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that I shared the same view of the history of the Speakership as the hon. Gentleman. There have been occasions, and this is one such. It is an important occasion, but, having said that, I think that now we should get on with the business.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Your Rulings, Mr. Speaker, have been very clear and authoritative on every point but one. It is quite true that the Rulings, which are clear and authoritative, are not completely acceptable to hon. Members on this side of the House, but that will have to be accepted because you have the power of the Chair. But


one Ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon which you have not been clear—or one point on which I submit you have not given a Ruling—is the question whether it is the Clause as amended or the Clause as it originally was.
If I may remind you of what you said on that point, you said that it will be made clear in the debate. With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is not a Ruling. I submit to you that whilst you have taken a lot of care—and the House will respect you very much for the care which you have taken—this is clearly a point which eluded you in the previous thought which you gave to it.
I should have thought, from the general demeanour of the Chair and the way in which you handled the very difficult questions, that this becomes clear. It is vital, if we are to accept the precedent, that the House should feel that the Chair itself is authoritative on every point and with respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit you have not been authoritative on this particular point. To get over it, may I suggest that you ask the Government to take this matter back—if need be until tomorrow —so that this particular point, which is not covered by an authoritative Ruling from the Chair, can be made authoritative and we can be clear?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put his point courteously. He has suggested that a point has eluded me, but it is a point on which I have so far ruled six or seven times.

Sir Eric Fletcher: May I try to help the House? I am sure that the whole House is always interested when a procedural question without precedent arises. A great many hon. Members on both sides of the House will not regret that there has been a fairly full discussion about a procedural question of some novelty.
Your Rulings, Mr. Speaker, have been criticised on the other side of the House chiefly on one ground—namely, that the proposed Instruction lacks clarity as to whether the Standing Committee should have power either to insert Clause 1 in its original form or Clause 1 as amended. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to support your Ruling that the proposed Instruction is not lacking in clarity [An HON. MEMBER: " What does it mean, then? "] I am proposing to explain

what I think it means. The Instruction gives the Committee permissive power. As I read it, it enables the Committee either to restore Clause 1 in its original form or to restore it in its amended form. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members opposite will have the courtesy to listen for a moment to arguments contrary to those which they have been expressing.
An Instruction to a Committee is not an Instruction to do something precise and specific; it is an Instruction, and called an Instruction, but it is coupled with permissive power. The words in the so-called Instruction give the Committee power to do various things. It would, therefore, be a mistake to suppose that, if it passed the Instruction, the House would be limiting or circumscribing particularly what the Committee is to do with Clause 1 when it comes back to it.
It does not seem to me to be contrary to common sense to say that what the House is being asked to do in this Instruction is to ask the Committee to reconsider Clause 1, and it gives the Committee power to reconsider it in its entirety. That means, does it not, that, notwithstanding any previous consideration or previous vote, it will be open to the Committee either to pass it in its original form, in its form as previously amended, or, indeed, in any other form?
That, it seems to me, is the obvious purpose of the proposed Instruction, to give the Committee the widest possible powers to deal with Clause 1, notwithstanding any previous votes which have occurred on it. If I am right in thinking that that is the obvious construction of the Instruction, it seems to follow that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, cannot possibly be attacked on the ground that it lacks clarity.
The clear intention of the language of the Instruction is to give the Committee the fullest possible power to deal with Clause 1. Therefore, I personally would hope, now we have had this long and interesting discussion, that we could, as you have suggested, Sir, proceed to consider the Instruction.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has reinforced what Mr. Speaker has ruled several times now.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order arising out of your Ruling. You ruled that " the Education Bill, so far as amended ", would be debated by the House this afternoon. I take it that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members were not members of the Standing Committee. I was not on the Committee. The only Bill which we can obtain from the Vote Office is the Bill, not the Bill "so far as amended ". How can anyone debate this reasonably, how can we find out the Amendments, and is this not making a mockery of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That point, also, was put by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. We are not debating the Bill. We are to debate the first Order, the procedural Motion, whether the Bill be recommitted.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put to you a point of order which has one intention and one intention only, that is, to safeguard the position of hon. Members who have the privilege of serving as members of the Panel of Chairmen which you choose? We have to recognise, do we not, that any member of that Panel may be called upon to take the Chair at any Standing Committee? I have not had the opportunity of discussing any matter concerning the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who, I understand, is the member of the Panel of Chairmen who has been Chairman of the Committee on this Bill, but the point I wish to put to you, Sir, is this.
I am concerned about the position of any member of your Panel who may be called upon to take the Chair in Committee on this Bill. Certainly, if it were myself, I should not know, in the light of your Ruling on the question of the Instruction, whether I should be in order to call an Amendment designed to restore the original Clause 1 or to restore the amended Clause 1. In the interest of the Panel itself, I would ask you very seriously, Mr. Speaker, at least to make clear which you had in mind when you made the Ruling you did.

Mr. Speaker: It is exceedingly difficult for Mr. Speaker to reply to one of his

Chairmen who seems to suggest that he is speaking on behalf of Mr. Speaker's Panel of Chairmen. I have ruled again and again on this matter this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman is Chairman of a Standing Committee, he is responsible for the Committee, not Mr. Speaker.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Mr. Speaker, may I, please, clear up a misunderstanding which seems to be in your mind? I would not wish it in any way to be thought that I was speaking on behalf of the Panel as a whole. I said that my intention in raising the point of order was to protect the Panel. I have not the authority of the Panel of Chairmen to speak for them collectively, but I am a member of it, and it is conceivable that I might have to stand in for my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway or, indeed, for any other hon. Member who was the Chairman of a Standing Committee. It was for that reason that I asked my question.
I can only again repeat to you, Sir, that if I found myself in the Chair at that Committee, I would not know what your Ruling really meant.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman, when he reads my Rulings, will find them quite clear.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: May I raise as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a matter in this connection which concerns me greatly? At the beginning of this series of points of order, the Chair had no knowledge of what evidence or past precedents back benchers from either side would wish to adduce in offering the Chair counsel on this situation, which has no precedent. What concerns me very much, therefore, is that a Ruling should be given on this highly important point after only one Front Bench speaker had been heard, which accordingly puts all other hon. Members who have put a lot of work into tracing precedents into the position of either having to appear to challenge a Ruling which you have already given, Mr. Speaker, or having to accept that they have no means of drawing to your attention, as I respectfully submit it is their right and their duty to do, the result of their research upon this most important matter.
I respectfully submit that, if we are setting the precedent that a Ruling is given after one submission has been


made, though it is obvious that other hon. Members wish to make important submissions on the same subject, the vest majority of hon. and right hon. Members are effectively estopped from making their contribution on matters which are admittedly without precedent. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that, if the House is to keep control of its own proceedings, this is an important point of principle.

Mr. Speaker: I have not noticed that any hon. Member has been effectively estopped from putting points of order to Mr. Speaker. What happened—I thought that the hon. Gentleman appreciated it—was that the Front Bench Member of his own party put in great detail and with great clarity all the points of order which could possibly have arisen. No new one has arisen since.

Mr. Ian Percival: With respect, I thought that the right hon. Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher) rather gave the pot a stir by coming back to the possible meanings of the Instruction. I propose to resist that temptation, Mr. Speaker, and to limit myself to seeking your guidance by a question. I think that we all agree that this is an important occasion and the precedent set today will be important. It is important also, therefore, that both we and future generations have a clear understanding of the basis of your Ruling.
As I understand, Sir, you proceeded on the basis of accepting that an Instruction must be specific to be in order. It would seem to follow from that that the first question one has to decide in ruling whether an Instruction is in order is what it means, so that what it means is an essential part of the Ruling, or the Chair's decision as to what it means is an essential part of the Ruling. We should be far better able to understand the basis of the Ruling if we knew Mr. Speaker's decision on that.
My question, therefore, is to ask you, Sir, if you would tell us what decision you formed as to its meaning in coming to the conclusion that it had so specific a meaning that it was in order.

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with that point again and again.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: As one who, like my hon. Friend the member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), might have to take the Chair at some time in Committee on this Bill, I would have to interpret what this Instruction would mean. I make clear that in my mind the way I would interpret it, if I were asked to give a Ruling, would be as follows. To me, Clause 1 of the Bill means quite specifically the original Clause 1 of the original Bill. The Instruction says:
 to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect.
It follows quite naturally that the " like effect " means like effect to the original Clause. Therefore, I think that that is in line with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. William Baxter: A very important subject has been discussed this afternoon. Most hon. Members have listened with respect for, and appreciation of, the points of order made by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). Most of us have appreciated the excellent Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given in very difficult circumstances. I respectfully suggest that this matter has been ventilated sufficiently. There has been a great deal of repetition in points of order. I crave your permission to move —this is rather distasteful—that your Ruling be accepted by the House and that the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: That is not the way to proceed.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I have been seeking for some time to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. The effect of your Ruling on Standing Order No. 52 must be to prevent the House having the advice in debate of senior hon. Members as to how best to get the House, or indeed the Government, out of this particular fix. Therefore, we shall be precluded from consideration of other possibilities.
I ask you, as a member of the former Committee and a potential receiver of this rather dubious Instruction, whether there are not other methods which are much more consonant with our procedure and do not involve a tortuously created precedent. In the ordinary way is it not proper on a matter which the Government of the day wish to put right,


and which has been disagreed to in Standing Committee, to deal with on Report in the whole House?
The Bill cannot go any further without having some meaning brought into it. Would it not be possible to recommit Clause 1, or the whole Bill, as the Government might wish, not to revive the former Committee with Instructions in conflict with the established procedures of the House and of our rules of debate, but to send it back to a Committee of the whole House?

Mr. Speaker: That might emerge in the debate.

Mr. David Lane: I apologise for prolonging the discussion for a minute or two, but I feel that I must put a doubt which I genuinely feel as a potential member of the revised Committee, purely over the Instruction. I ask you, Sir, to consider what I believe a fresh aspect which has not been touched on.
If we have power, as the Committee, in accordance with your Ruling, to reinsert
 provisions with a like effect,
whether or not we interpret that as being Clause 1 in the original form or Clause 1 as amended, there still seems to be a difficulty. My doubt was heightened by what was said by the right hon. Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher). Clause 1 consists of the principle of non-selection, plus several exceptions. I ask whether we shall be empowered as a Committee to add to the list of those exceptions over and above those in the original wording of Clause 1 to add, for example, exceptions about gifted children, boarding education, or various other matters.
If I may link my question to what was said by the right hon. Member for Islington, East, with which you seemed to be associating yourself, may we take it that we shall be resuming consideration of the original Clause 1 with the entitlement to a full discussion of all those issues raised either by the original wording of Clause 1 or possible Amendments to add to the exceptions?

Mr. Speaker: That can be raised in the debate on the Instruction. We come now to the Motion.

5.5 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted to the former Committee.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on the way in which she raised her points of order. She did it with eloquence and had obviously done her homework well. It is not for me to get involved in argument with the Chair on points of order.
To come to the Motion, I believe the House is well aware of the circumstances which led to it appearing on the Order Paper. On Tuesday last week the Government lost by one vote an important Division in the Committee stage on the Education Bill. That is not unusual: other Governments have done so. Although, as other hon. Members have pointed out, this precise situation has not arisen before, and because the Clause itself was fundamental to the Bill this is in a sense a new situation, it is the sort of mishap which has happened occasionally to Governments of all parties. I can recall a number of occasions when Governments have temporarily lost some or all of a piece of legislation.
Last week I mentioned one such occasion. Sometimes these defeats are relatively minor—the sort of Amendments in Committee which are reversed on Report. Sometimes they are serious.
Hon. Members opposite will recall that they lost the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill in 1952—a Measure to which they claimed to attach considerable importance—when the House was counted out and the Order for Second Reading had to be reinstated.
Nor will it have escaped the memory of hon. Members who have been longer in this House that there was a still more weighty instance. We have not acted with the same precipitation as did that distinguished parliamentarian the then right hon. Member for Epping in 1944. His Government were defeated in Committee of the whole House—not in Standing Committee—on an Education Bill. By coincidence it was again by one vote, and appropriately it was on a matter which is still of importance in these days, equal pay. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) spoke about understatement. I thought the


way in which he addressed his remarks to me were characteristically arrogant. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh !"]
Here in 1944 was an example in which the right hon. Gentleman asked as a matter of confidence that the House should take steps to reverse its decision. As representing the Government and as Leader of the House, I am not being arrogant towards the Opposition. I believe hon Members opposite, quite rightly, oppose the Bill, for they take a contrary view to the Government. No doubt they will continue; their opposition in Committee. I make no complaint of the way in which proceedings have been conducted in Standing Committee. One has only to read carefully the HANSARD Reports of those debates to see that the various issues nave so far been argued in great detail—strongly, but fairly.
I could give many instances where mistakes have been made. This happens on both sides of the House and is a hazard of parliamentary procedure. The Opposition, rightly, have the opportunity to criticise. I am sure that the result of the Division which negatived the Clause was as great a surprise to hon. Members opposite as it was to my hon. and right hon. Friends in this Committee. But, inasmuch as the outcome of the Division turned upon the temporary absence of certain hon. Members from the Committee, there is no reason to believe that the views expressed by hon. Members opposite had in any way swayed opinion against the Bill.
Our parliamentary procedures also permit in those circumstances opportunity for the matter to be looked at again. Both sides of the House recognise that the Clause deleted was fundamental to the principle of the Bill, which was fully debated, as I have been reminded today by one of my hon. Friends, a couple of months ago and approved by a considerable majority.
I notice that there is an interesting point in Erskine May, page 534, which says:
 A Committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.
However, it is also stated at page 535 that a Committee can negative an essential Clause of the Bill whose omission

may nullify the Bill. There was, therefore, nothing out of order in the proceedings in Committee. Nevertheless it may be thought that these two rules are somewhat self-contradictory.
As I have said, the procedure of the House gives a chance for further consideration in such a situation. The Government were faced with several choices. The first, despite the defeat of this Clause, was that the Committee should continue with the Bill upstairs. Amendments could have been made to the succeeding Clauses, making them self-contained. This would have made the proceedings in Committee more meaningful and in order. I discussed this with my right hon. Friend and took advice. I believed that it would be more appropriate to report the situation to the House and give it a chance to recommit the Bill as a whole.
We felt that this alternative of continuing with the Committee Stage would not be satisfactory; it would not be in the general interests of the House nor of the Bill itself. As I told the House on Thursday, when I announced business and was cross-examined by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleages, I was anxious that if possible there should be adequate debate. I was pressed on this matter and some hon. Members took a contrary view. I have of course been in consultation with the authorities of the House and through the usual channels.
The result is the Motion on the Order Paper which will enable us to have a debate. Although, as you have explained Mr. Speaker, both parts of the Motion are confined to procedural matters, hon. Members will be able to speak more widely than if they had been confined to two brief explanatory statements by Standing Order No. 52. This is why the Motion is split into two parts.
I am sure that the House will recognise that although this means taking up valuable time on the Floor of the House it was in the circumstances the most straightforward and proper course for the Government to follow.
The Motion proposes that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee, Standing Committee A. That is common form for these Motions. The Committee had already had eight sittings on Clause 1 and had discussed the Clause thoroughly,


with considerable understanding. It will obviously be to the advantage of the House if the same Committee is asked to continue consideration of the Bill.
Another alternative, urged upon us by the Front Bench opposite, was that the Bill should be dropped. In circumstances like this such suggestions are traditional. It is a natural line for those who oppose the Bill. There can be no question of this Bill being dropped. This legislation was promised in the Gracious Speech, and it is a most important measure affecting the future of our children.
I have been deeply interested in educational matters, throughout my time in this House and long before. I would very much like to argue in detail the merits of this Bill and of Clause 1, but you would quite rightly rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret that I am not able to deploy these arguments at any length. But I can understand why the rules of the House are as they are. The principles of the Bill and the Clause have on a previous occasion been fully debated in the House, the merits argued to and fro and the principle has been accepted by a large majority. Without further ado I put forward this Motion so that the Committee can resume without delay the job of examining this Bill which is so important to the future development of our educational system.

5.15 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: The occasion for this Motion is the inability of the Government to manage their business competently and their inability to foresee what might happen. The Leader of the House has raised many points, the first relating to the Second Reading. A Standing Committee of the House, it is said, cannot disagree with the principles established on Second Reading of a Bill. A Standing Committee's duty is to look at the Bill in the light of the principles and to see whether it is a proper vehicle for putting those principles into effect.
Each Clause usually contains not merely principles but methods of applying those principles. It is quite open to hon. Members to vote against Clauses which contain principles on the ground that the Clause is not a proper means of putting that principle into effect.
If there were any suggestion to the contrary it would mean that the Chairman of the Committee would have to direct a Committee that any particular Clause which contained a principle could not be voted against by the Committee or could not be voted against in sufficient numbers to defeat it. It is quite in order, as the 1964 edition of Erskine May says, for it if need be to defeat all the Clauses of a Bill and still not necessarily go against the principles behind a Bill. The two matters are entirely different.
As to the Recommittal Motion, a few days ago the Secretary of State for Education and Science moved, " That the Committee do not proceed further with the consideration of the Bill ". We are now faced with a Motion telling the Committee to proceed further with consideration of the Bill. As the Leader of the House has said, there is no precedent for recommittal being used in this way. The proper way to have dealt with it, I suggest, would have been either to have dealt with the matter on Report, which was open to the right hon. Gentleman, or, to take the precedents cited in the 1964 edition of Erskine May, to have combined recommittal and instruction proceedings. There have been cases, not of whole Bills being recommitted, but of combined recommittal and instruction Motions. All of those Motions have been for recommittals to Committees of the whole House. If there has been a matter upon which a Committee of the House appeared to disagree, it would seem that the only right and honourable course was for the whole House to deal with the Committee stage.
There are no precedents for major Clauses being lost in a Government Bill. There are 11 cases where the effective Clause was lost but all of those cases were Private Members' Bills. In all of those cases no further action was taken, and the Bill was lost.
In a twelfth there was a curious Bill which had on the front of it the name of a junior Minister at the Home Office, but was not a Government Bill. An Amendment was carried, defeating the object of the Bill. The Bill was not proceeded with as such, but the Government introduced a new Bill embodying a compromise. So the present case in the first in which, in the face of a major defeat, there has been


a full recommittal to a Standing Committee and the Bill has been proceeded with.
The Leader of the House finally referred to some matters concerning the Bill itself. Let us be quite clear what the Bill to which we are devoting so much time does not do. Clause 1 does not make the abolition of selection compulsory. What it says is that local authorities must have regard to the need for ending it. The Bill, which the Leader of the House regards as so important, will

not take effect in the present Parliament, and for some local authorities it will probably not take effect in the lifetime of the next Parliament, because, as the Secretary of State said in Committee, it would be too expensive to do so.

It is wrong to recommit a Bill under those circumstances, and we shall vote against the Motion.

Question put pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Re-committal of Bills):

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 222.

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[5.21 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dempsey, James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Albu, Austen
Dewar, Donald
Howie, W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Alldritt, Walter
Dickens, James
Huckfield, Leslie


Allen, Scholefield
Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashley, Jack
Dunn, James A.
Hunter, Adam


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dunnett, Jack
Hynd, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Dr, John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Awdry, Daniel
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edelman, Maurice
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Ellis, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Baxter, William
English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Beaney, Alan
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bidwell, Sydney
Finch, Harold
Judd, Frank


Binns, John
Fletcher.Rt.Hn.Sir Eric(Islington, E.)
Kelley, Richard


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kenyon, Clifford


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foley, Maurice
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Booth, Albert
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Latham, Arthur


Boston, Terence
Ford, Ben
Lawler, Wallace


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Forrester, John
Lawson, George


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Gerry
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Ledger, Ron


Brooks, Edwin
Freeson, Reginald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Gardner, Tony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Garrett, W. E.
Lee, John (Reading)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Golding, John
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lipton, Marcus


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gregory, Arnold
Lomas, Kenneth


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Grey, Charles(Durham)
Luard, Evan


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lubbock, Eric


Callghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McBride, Neil


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamling, William
McCann, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William
MacColl, James


Conlan, Bernard
Harper, Joseph
MacDermot, Niall


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Macdonald, A. H.


Cronin, John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McElhone, Frank


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Haseldine, Norman
McGuire, Michael


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Dalyell, Tam
Hazell, Bert
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mackie, John


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackintosh, John P.


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Henig, Stanley
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hilton, W. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hobden, Dennis
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Delargy, H. J.
Horner, John
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Dell, Edmund
Hougtiton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth




Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Pentland, Norman
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Maxwell, Robert
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mayhew, Christopher
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Symonds, J. B.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Taverne, Dick


Mendelson, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mikardo, Ian
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Tinn, James


Millan, Bruce
Price, William (Rugby)
Tomney, Frank


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Probert, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Moonman, Eric
Randall, Harry
Urwin, T. W.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshiré)
Rankin, John
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wallace, George


Murray, Albert
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Neal, Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Newens, Stan
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Weitzman, David


Norwood, Christopher
Rose, Paul
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ogden, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
White, Mrs. Eirene


O'Halloran, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Oram, Albert E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Williams, Alan (Swansea. W.)


Orbach, Maurice
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Orme, Stanley
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Padley, Walter Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Winnick, David


Paget, R. T.
Sillars, J.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Slater, Joseph
Woof, Robert


Park, Trevor
Small William



Parker, John (Dagenham)
Snow Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Pavitt, Laurence
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. loan L. Evans.


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clegg, Walter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cordle, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Astor, John
Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Costain, A. P.
Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Balniel, Lord
Currie, G. B. H.
Hastings, Stephen


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hawkins, Paul


Batsford, Brian
Dance, James
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Hiley, Joseph


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, J. E. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Holland, Philip


Biffen, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornby, Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Sir John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hunt, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Elliott.R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Blaker, Peter
Emery, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fisher, Nigel
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fortescue, Tim
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Braine, Bernard
Foster, Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kershaw, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Fry, Peter
Kimball, Marcus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kitson, Timothy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gibson-Watt, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lambton, Antony


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gower, Raymond
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grant, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Channon, H. P. G.
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Chataway, Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Clark, Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, Sir Stephen







MacArthur, Ian
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McMaster, Stanley
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Peyton, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maddan, Martin
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tilney, John


Maginnis, John E.
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marten, Neil
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Maude, Angus
Prior, J. M. L.
Waddington, David


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mawby, Ray
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walt, Patrick


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, Dame Irene


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Monro, Hector
Robson Brown, Sir William
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Montgomery, Fergus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Royle, Anthony
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Sharpies, Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Worsley, Marcus


Murton, Oscar
Silvester, Frederick
Wright, Esmond


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Wylie, N. R.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Younger, Hn. George


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nott, John
Speed, Keith
Mr. Jasper More and


Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Ordered

That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted to the former Committee.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee A that, notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause I of the Education Bill, they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect.
This Motion, which appears in italics on the Order Paper, is entirely dependent upon the first Motion which the House has just passed and is a natural corollary of it.
Hon. Members opposite have maintained that the Committee could not sensibly continue without Clause 1. I understand this argument since Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill are related to Clause 1. The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has argued that without Clause 1 the other Clauses in the Bill are meaningless. Since the House has decided to recommit this Bill to Committee, a decision which it would not now be in order to debate or challenge, the House must empower the Committee to insert similar provisions in the Bill, otherwise we shall condemn the Committee to a task which would not make sense. Whatever the arguments between the two sides of the House about the merits of the Bill, I am sure that the Opposition accepts that point.
You have reminded us, Mr. Speaker, of the rules relating to this debate, rules which are designed to protect the House from repetitious debate. We have had a series of points of order on which Mr. Speaker has given his Rulings, and the House naturally accepts them. The principle of the Bill has already been fully debated and approved by the House. Therefore, the Clauses now fall to be considered in the Committee.
Despite the limitation on debate, I felt it right that this matter should come to the Floor of the House. I do not want to repeat all the arguments. The hon. Lady for Finchley mentioned the Report stage, but after careful examination I thought it right to have a re-committal Motion to allow hon. Members an opportunity to express their views, though not on the merits of the Bill since the House has already made a decision in that respect. The arguments on various Clauses are matters for the Committee.
Last Thursday the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) asked me if it was necessary to spend a whole day on this Motion, and other hon. Members have asked me the same question. I hope, therefore, that this Motion will not lead to repetitious debate, but that we shall proceed reasonably expeditiously to our


other business. If there are any points on which elucidation is required, since I have no right to speak again, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will deal with them when he winds up.

5.39 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: We are in some difficulty about debating this Instruction. As I understand the situation at the moment, the Bill is to be recommitted to the former Committee to meet at an unknown time on an unknown day. The Instruction has an unknown meaning which it will be for the Chairman of the Committee to decide. We cannot therefore ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is meant by the Instruction since it is not within his powers to say. We are in even greater difficulty because those who serve on the Chairmen's Panel have said earlier this afternoon that, should they be in the Chair when this Committee meets again, they would not know what this Instruction meant. All I can do, therefore, is to ask the Secretary of State what he intended to mean and what his action would be, as representing the Government, in the face of certain Amendments to which the Committee formerly agreed.
May I, therefore, ask him whether he intended the phrase " Clause 1 " to mean Clause 1 of the original Bill or Clause 1 as amended—that is to say, whether he is prepared, subject to whatever the Chairman says, to agree to Amendments concerning banding? As those Amendments were previously passed, would he be in favour of those Amendments being passed again, as he must be if the phrase means Clause 1 as amended? We should like a clear statement about that.
A second point which may be worth mentioning to elucidate the procedure is that as I understand it the Committee may reject the powers in this Instruction. They may reject them because they are not clear or they may reject them on the ground that, according to Standing Order 33(2), an Instruction has to be treated as an Amendment in respect of the Bill. An Instruction, therefore, comes within the ordinary procedure for the selection of Amendments. I ask the right hon. Gentleman

whether in his view the ordinary rules of selection of Amendments apply. I have to ask him because I may ask no one else. There are very extensive rules about which Amendments can and cannot be selected and which are out of order. It seems to me that this Instruction comes within the ordinary rules concerning which Amendments are out of order.
Thirdly, does the right hon. Gentleman have it in mind to move a new Clause 1 or new Clause 1 as amended and not to object when the Committee proposes Amendments to that new Clause 1 or new Clause 1 as amended? Will he give the House an assurance that he will not oppose the proposal of such Amendments and the taking of such Amendments in Committee, subject, of course, to what the Chairman says?
It is also important that we are able to move Amendments which were not moved previously if we are to return to Clause 1. That is important for a number of reasons, and I will give two of them. First, we have received letters from the Assistant Masters Association containing copies of a letter to the Minister stating,
 In the view of my executive committee it was unfortunate that consideration of the Bill should have proceeded while, owing to difficulties of the Stationery Office, there was a delay in meeting requests for copies of it.
It is, therefore, important that we should be able to move new Amendments—and that our right to do so should not be opposed by the right hon. Gentleman—to Clause 1 or to Clause 1 as amended—Amendments which we did not move previously because other people had not then had a chance to consider the Bill.
The second reason why this point is important is that the recommendations of the Donnison Committee, which affect Clause 1 or Clause 1 as amended, appeared after we had passed the relevant Amendments. If we are to go back to Committee with these powers, it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should take no action to prevent our raising this matter in the light of fresh evidence. All I can do is to ask the right hon. Gentleman the view which he will take on this matter. Will he give us an assurance that he will not oppose the maximum freedom being given to the Committee to start the Bill as if it were starting a fresh Bill?
In considering the latter part of the Instruction, we still do not know what are
 provisions with a like effect ".
We do not know what they are like to. Clearly the Instruction does not state that the Committee must insert a new Clause 1 or a new Clause 1 as amended. But it appears to us that the Committee must insert a new Clause 1 with similar effect to that of the present Clause 1 or Clause 1 as amended, but it may be in entirely different terms, as long as the broad effect is the same.
Obviously that will give rise to considerable procedural difficulties in the Committee to which the Bill is recommitted. In the original Committee we discussed 38 Amendments. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were a number of occasions on which the Committee could not have continued without the co-operation of the Opposition, because without them there would not have been a quorum present. On some days the Committee could not have started had the Chairman been compelled to rely on the number of Members present on the Government side of the Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that point into account in determining his attitude towards this Instruction.
We do not know what the Instruction means. That is a very good ground for opposing it. Chairmen of Committees have said that they cannot interpret this Instruction. We give notice, therefore, that if possible we shall continue the debate when we get into Committee upstairs, if the Instruction is passed. I oppose it.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I wish to make a very brief intervention. I hope that the Secreary of State will forgive me if I am absent for his reply, if he has to conclude the debate early, but I have to attend a meeting of the Committee on Procedure almost immediately.
This Instruction is a very dangerous innovation and I hope that the House will think carefully what they are doing before they pass it. For the first time in the history of Parliament it is the intention to break the rules which state that Standing Committees cannot say both

" Aye " and " No " to the same Question. That is the issue. I do not want to raise the arguments about the merits of the Education Bill, because my comment would relate to any Bill. There have been many times in Parliament when Governments have suffered defeat in Standing Committees. Up to now they have always accepted those defeats and have taken the necessary steps to seek a remedy on the Floor of the House. For the first time a Government propose to take a different course. It surprises me that that is being done in the last few months of a Parliament by a Government who may well be sitting on this side of the House in six months' time. That is a contingency which surely the Lord President of the Council might have envisaged. As one who will not be present on that occasion, I beg my colleagues not to take advantage of this precedent, because I believe it to be a very dangerous precedent.
Mr. Speaker earlier said that the rules of procedure are flexible. That is so. But they are designed to aid the private Member in the battle against the Executive, and what we are doing today, whether applied to the Education Bill or to any other Bill, is weakening the power of the private Member and increasing the power of the Executive. I hope that the House will take careful thought before agreeing to this step. I have considerable sympathy with the Government. They have been mortified by the Prices and Incomes Bill and now they are in considerable difficulty with the Prices and the Education Bill.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I will address the House for a few minutes only. May I, first, warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on what we all felt was an outstanding parliamentary performance.
I agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope that the public and hon. Members will not look at this afternoon as a parliamentary exercise. I say that for two reasons. First, it is a serious matter, and should always be regarded as a serious matter, when the Government fail to carry a major operative Clause of one of their own Bills. Secondly, it is always


the custom of the procedure of the House for the Government, when they are defeated in Committee, to register this in the print of the Bill that appears before the House on Report, and the onus is on them to put it right. Clearly, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is a quite different matter when the Government on recommittal simply negative the results of their supporters' inaction.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us what procedure he intends on recommittal. Is it his intention to put before us Clause 1 in its original state or as amended? I say this for no personal reason, but I think that on recommittal Clause l, as amended, should be the basis of our new proceedings. The fact of the Government's defeat should be formally registered in the print which is considered by those hon. Members who will he debating the Bill, and the onus should be on the Government to put back the legislation to what they think is right.
As the Secretary of State himself admitted, this Amendment was not an unimportant matter. The Committee spent more than a whole sitting considering the issues of zoning and of banding. The Amendment was not a wrecking Amendment and was never intended as such. It dealt with the whole question of how one can best organise comprehensive education in big cities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put before the new Committee Clause 1, as amended; that is to say, Clause 1 in the form in which it was when the earlier Committee defeated it.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley said about the Donnison Report. I well remember when copies of the Donnison Report were handed out to the Committee. I was speaking at the time and receiving a certain amount of courteous attention when suddenly the whole attention of the Members of the Committee, very reasonably, became directed to the new document which had been put before them. The appearance of the Donnison Report makes it important for us to consider again, more fully, at least one of the Amendments which we have already debated. Time has not stood still since our earlier discussions on Clause 1. While none of us on the Committee wishes

to be unreasonable, or to speak at excessive length for speaking's sake, we hope that it will be possible to reconsider some of the important issues which we discussed earlier, in the light of fresh evidence and fresh representations which have been made to us.
We are making this afternoon an important break with precedent. With great respect, some of us were a little worried at what was said this afternoon about our "flexible" procedure in this House. I am reminded of the remark of Mr. Aneurin Bevan, that it is exactly because we have a formalised procedure that we have our degree of freedom of speech. For that reason we should not regard this afternoon's proceedings as in any way otiose or too protracted.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I intervene briefly only to refer to what was said by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He said that we were discussing an important matter, and with that I agree. He added that we must realise that the Executive is enforcing this procedure and diminishing or endangering the rights of individual hon. Members of the House of Commons. This statement should not go unchallenged by the back benchers.

Mr. Turton: May I repeat what I said? I said that the rules of procedure are laid down for the protection of the private Member against the Executive. Therefore, the rule that I quoted about the Committee stage is for the benefit of the private Member, and what is being destroyed is his rights.

Mr. Mendelson: I accept that is what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I quoted the gist of it; that this is a decision which the Executive is taking in contrast to the Members of the House of Commons. This statement should not go unchallenged from the back benchers before a member of the Executive replies on behalf of the Executive.
I repudiate the implication of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, whose views on procedure I always treat with the greatest respect, whether in the Speaker's Conference or in the House. There is no imposition by the Executive, because the Members of the House will


make the decision by their vote. For many hon. Members this is not an automatic procedure. I regard this as a perfectly proper procedure, and the best possible and most advisable procedure which will in no way endanger or take away the rights of back benchers or individual hon. Members.
Whilst it is important that the procedure should protect the rights of individual hon. Members, it is equally important that it should allow the majority to carry its business, which is the policy supported by the citizens. If a new precedent is to be created, the rights of hon. Members must be protected and the rights of the majority must also be protected.
The House has no right to instruct the Standing Committee on Amendments. The Committee will be completely free. I do not want to criticise what was said when points of order were being raised. The Committee will be like any other Standing Committee perfectly free to pass any Amendments it wishes to pass. If it is more sensible for a Standing Committee to be able to debate and reinstate the main principle of the Bill, it is in the best interests of the House of Commons and of the standing of Parliament as an institution that this procedure should be followed. I support the procedure which is advanced by the Government because it is the most suitable and intelligent procedure and will do no harm to the standing of Parliament. Any other procedure might damage the debate of the Standing Committee and thereby harm the standing of Parliament.

Mr. Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he thinks about the proposition that this is to be referred back to the former Committee which considered the matter and came to a decision? Does not he think that it is humiliating to send a matter back to members of the former Committee with the intention that their decision should be reversed?

Mr. Mendelson: I am completely at a loss to understand how the hon. Gentleman can talk about humiliation when the House of Commons decides to refer a Measure to a Committee. I thought that we were debating the matter seriously and trying to get away from propaganda. I am confining myself to the attitude of Members of the House, not members of the Committee only, nor members of the

Executive. The replies to the points which have been made will be given by the Secretary of State. However, answering the hon. Gentleman as one back bencher to another, I tell him that there can be no question of humiliation.
What is at issue is the decision as to how most sensibly this business can be discussed and decided. I am confident that every back bencher can feel unrestricted and unafraid that his rights are being diminished and interfered with if he approves the Government's proposal.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is not consistent; he sings one song when he is on the Government benches and another when he is on the Opposition benches. If it had been a Tory Government who were practising this manoeuvre, he would have been protesting throughout the afternoon. I have a fairly long memory and I can remember some of his speeches in the 1959–64 Parliament.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made an excellent speech which showed up the Government's shortcomings. This mess is entirely of the Government's making. At the end of seven and a half sittings discussing Clause 1, the Standing Committee, in its wisdom, decided to vote against Clause 1 as amended. The Secretary of State said at that time:
 I am afraid that I am a bit lost.
He could say that again!
 I have never encountered this situation before. Perhaps the best thing would be to adjourn. I ought to know the answer, but I do not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th April, 1970; c. 321–2.]
The right hon. Gentleman has been Chief Whip for the Government. If he was a bit lost, I suppose all of us were lost. The Government were defeated in Committee, after a fair vote, because three members of the Committee—Government members—were not there, although the Opposition were there in full strength. I do not want to rub salt into the wounds of the three missing members, but I understand from the Daily Telegraph of 16th April—I am not allowed to be present at meetings of the Parliamentary


Labour Party—that the Chief Whip gave them a lashing.
On 16th April the Committee met again, and the Secretary of State—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the Motion, which is concerned with exceptional treatment of this issue under the Instruction. He is now getting away from the Instruction.

Mr. Montgomery: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with an exceptional situation.
I was under the impression, as were most of my hon. Friends, that the Instruction had to be specific. I still do not understand what the Instruction means. Time after time hon. Members on this side have asked for it to be explained whether the Clause that the Committee is to deal with is Clause 1 as the Government first intended or Clause 1 as amended by defeat in Committee on an Amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hands-worth.
The Leader of the House said that the Committee would meet without further delay. What does "without further delay" mean? Are the Government thinking that we shall sit tomorrow morning or shall we start sitting next Tuesday?
Different phrases have been used in the Motion. At one time the words "the former Committee" were used. The words now are "Standing Committee A". I think that the Committee which was dealing with the Bill is to deal with it again, which could present difficulties. That Committee began its deliberations several weeks ago. Its members knew what their obligations were and whether they would be able to serve for the full term of the Committee. Circumstances have changed. Thinking that they would be able to see it through to the end, hon. Members on both sides may have commitments to go on parliamentary delegations soon; or they could be ill. Are they to be excused from the Committee?
I hope that when the Committee reconvenes we shall have a full debate on whatever is put in the place of what was Clause 1 in the original Bill. When we were discussing Clause 1, the

Donnison Report was published. The Minister of State made veiled references to the report, because she had advance knowledge of what was in it, whilst Opposition Members had no idea. The fact that we will now be armed with the report will lead to a more informed debate.
I am sorry that the Government have been driven to this expedient. I would have been much happier if they had dropped the Bill and accepted the wish of the Committee.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I have been fascinated by the manner in which the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) presented her case.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you not mean to call the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), to allow him to explain to the House how all this had happened?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Price: I hope that there will not be many interruptions during my short contribution, because, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) knows, I shall have no difficulty in dealing with provocation of that kind. I do not want to be provoked.
I have risen to put this matter into perspective. I do not share the anguish seemingly felt by hon. Members opposite, who have made heavy weather of this matter. Those of us who have any experience of the House extending over some years are sufficiently broad-minded to know that, if a Government have a little accident, as the Government did in this case, the Opposition will extract from that situation the last drop of blood in terms of debating it on the Floor of the House and trying to make the Government look foolish. During the 20 years that I have been in the House there have been many occasions when Governments of both parties have been in trouble caused by snap Divisions, in Committee or on the Floor of the House, or by a little "expedition" during the night.
This puny Bill has suffered a small accident in Committee. Since 3.30 p.m.


the Government have been lambasted by hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members have used all the parliamentary devices which they are so capable of using, particularly the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). There has been a small slip here, like the servant girl's little mistake—de minimis.
I remind the hon. Member for Finchley—

Sir E. Boyle: Sir E. Boyle rose—

Mr. Price: The hon. Lady gave us a most learned and high-powered speech stemming from a good deal of research in the Library. Whilst this is professionally interesting, it has the effect of clearing the Strangers' Gallery to a greater extent than usually happens on these occasions —not that we are concerned with the Strangers' Gallery; we are concerned with the business of the House and what merit there is in it.
There has been a relatively small slip in handling the Bill upstairs. Some hon. Members were missing, so the Government got a little rebuff, which they do not like, and they are now taking steps to deal with it.
I remind the House that in 1954—I am sorry that the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has left us—not only did the Government of the day lose a Clause of a Bill upstairs, but they lost the whole Finance Bill on the Floor of the House [Interruption.] If I may be allowed to make my speech in my own way it will be shorter, more interesting, and more logical.
I was sitting on the benches opposite in the middle of the night when the Finance Bill was being considered on the Floor of the House in 1954. In those days, the Finance Bill was not sent upstairs. I think that I am the only Member on this side who objected to it being sent upstairs.
The Government of the day were ham-fisted and comatose in the early watches of the night. The Finance Bill, which embodies the financial provisions for taxation during the coming year, had gone through Second Reading and had reached its Committee stage on the Floor of the House. But the Government were in such a somnolent state at four o'clock in the morning that, when Mr.

Speaker, who was so annoyed by the procedure that was going on—a great deal of opposition was going on from my side; it is a matter of history and it is on record—said that if there was not more order kept he would leave the Chair, whereupon a "bright" member of my party, who shall be nameless, immediately moved that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. Before they knew what was happening, the Motion was carried and Mr. Speaker left the Chair and took the Finance Bill with him off the Floor of the House.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I wonder whether this is in accordance with a debate on the giving of an Instruction. It does not seem to be in order. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Strangers' Gallery. There is no cognisance of strangers in this House. Therefore, is not that out of order, too?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is using the occasion of a previous Finance Bill to illustrate the point that he is making. I hope that he will not make it at any greater length.
It is not the practice of the House to refer to the Strangers' Gallery.

Mr. Price: I will not elaborate. I am sorry if I have annoyed the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), but these are related matters. I am using this historical reference to show how exaggerated today's performance by the Opposition has been on this relatively small matter.
If we had a great deal of time I could cite other occasions without going into the Library and spending all day digging through musty old volumes. Anybody can do that. I do not intend any disrespect to any hon. Member who likes that kind of thing, but I do not like midnight oil speeches. If I make an incorrect statement on the Floor of the House, I am sure that someone will check me and go to the Library to prove that I am wrong. I should not object, because that is in the ordinary give and take of politics.
One further serious matter—what I have said so far has been said with a serious purpose—is that on occasions like this, of which we have had many, it is conventional for diligent hon. Members


on both sides to plough through all the old precedents and go through the books in a similar way to the procedure in the High Court and to quote on the Floor of the House ancient precedents going back to the last century and sometimes to the century before that. It is all part of the picture of Parliament.
As a back-bench Member I would not do anything which seriously interfered with or impaired the rights of private Members as against the Executive. I think that I have given sufficient evidence of that to the House. I share the point expressed by the Father of the House on that aspect of the matter. But for anybody to try to suggest that, because somewhere in the scrolls of Zion, or an edict of this House, in the 18th, 17th, or 16th century, there was created a code of conduct and procedural way of dealing with a matter, that should be immutable law for all time, is complete nonsense.
This is the High Court of Parliament. Let us never forget that. Parliament is sovereign. Nothing, to my mind, takes second place to the right of Parliament to express the view of the majority. I will fight for minority rights where I believe there is a valid case. But Parliament should not be stultified by immutable laws and precedents that have stood on the books and are capable of being dug out of their coffins. This suits lawyers, because it produces fees for them. But it does not suit ordinary people like us.
In a debate like this, where there is an honest division of opinion on a matter which has to be put right if a mistake has been made, the will of the majority should prevail. If we take seriously the case presented so forcibly and tediously by hon. Members opposite, Parliament would not be a place where the majority will of the people prevailed; it would be a place where active minorities, who have got themselves into little cabals and groups, would claim that minority rights were greater than majority rights.
In having this debate today—in rather a good-natured fashion, I hope—I claim that we have not done anything to impair the power of Parliament to do the right thing, but that we have done something which will enshrine the right of Parliament that the majority will shall prevail in a matter in dispute.

6.18 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr J. T. Price) is an old friend of mine. I usually enjoy his speeches, but tonight his speech was not as good as some that he has made in the past.
The hon. Gentleman referred to this place as the High Court of Parliament and also to courts of law. I think that the Government are guilty of a squalid practice and that they ought to be thoroughly ashamed. It has been the long standing practice in this House and in the law courts that a decision is altered only by a larger or another body. A person is not sent back to the same court to be tried again by the same jury.
In its curious way Parliament works in a similar way. The long standing practice in this House has been that when a Government Bill is lost in Committee the Government do not instruct that Committee to put it right, as is being done in this case; they bring the Bill on to the Floor of the House so that a larger body of Members can rescind and alter the decision taken by the smaller group.
This is done— and the precedent goes back over many hundreds of years—not because of the archaic codes about which the hon. Gentleman spoke, but because the whole basis of our procedure is such that there would be no purpose in Committees deliberating at all if the Government of the day had only to instruct them to replace every Clause or every Amendment when the Government were defeated. It would negate the whole process of Committee operation.
That is why, in law, and in all parliamentary bodies, when a mistake has been made, as in this case, the practice has always been—and I believe that it is a wise practice for the mistake to be corrected by the Government of the day in the full light of publicity on the Floor of the House by committing the Bill to a Committee of the whole House so that the fault can be put right.
Nobody is suggesting that Governments never slip up, but this slip up should be causing the Leader of the House a great deal of concern, because this is not an isolated case. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Chairman of the Committee on the Gas


Bill has used his casting vote 11 times. On the C.I.M. Bill, which we started deliberating yesterday morning, we almost produced the same result as with the Education Bill. The most important Clause in the Bill was carried by the Government only by the casting vote of the Chairman.
This is a very worrying situation for the whole of our parliamentary procedure, because if we are not careful we shall turn the Chairman of Committees into what we pride ourselves they are not, and that is political animals. We shall force them to make political decisions, which will be bad for the whole Committee proceedings, and the way we run our chairmanships. I hope that the Leader of the House will watch this, because it is a very serious development in the way our proceedings are going.
I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Government's action in putting down this Motion to put right something which I think all reasonable parliamentarians know happens from time to time. There is a correct procedure for putting this right, one which the House knows, which is well tried and understood, and which does not contain the dangers of this innovation. If this innovation ever becomes popular with Governments, of whatever colour, a great deal of the Committee work of the House will become nugatory, because Committees will receive instructions from the Government of the day to undo what they have decided to do.
It is a long-standing tradition of the House that it is always another group of people who should alter a decision once made. It is also a long-standing tradition that, a Committee having reached a decision, that decision is firm, and that the only place where it can be altered is here, on the Floor of the House, in the public gaze. What the Government are doing by this innovation is bringing in something which, in the long-term, has great dangers. It has great dangers for the future running of Parliament, and one reason why, like my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, I have intervened in the debate is to appeal to any future Tory Administration not to repeat what is being done today, because I believe that this is a disgraceful misuse of parliamentary power.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: I should like to add to the pleas which have been made to the Secretary of State for Education to clarify the situation as far as he can so that when we resume in Committee we can get off to a good start, subject to the ruling of the Chairman.
On the best interpretation that I can make of the wording of the Instruction, I am assuming three things, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he disagres with any of them. First, I assume that the Committee will not meet again before next Tuesday. Second—and here I support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)—I assume that the phrasing which will be put back before the Committee will be the original Clause 1 as amended by the banding Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend.
Third—and this, Mr. Speaker, is the point which you invited me to bring out again briefly at this stage in the debate—I assume that the power to the Committee to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect to either the original Clause 1, or Clause 1, as amended, means that we can, if we think fit, seek to widen, or even to narrow, the exceptions to the principles set out in Clause 1.
I shall not repeat what others have said about the late publication of the Donnison Report as the reason why some of the matters which we have discussed could well be discussed for a limited time again in Committee, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what was said during the debate this afternoon, first, by the right hon. Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher), and, more recently, by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). They both said, and I welcome this, that they hoped the Committee would feel reasonably free to discuss again the ground covered by Clause 1, in whatever form it was reintroduced, without undue restrictions being placed upon it by the Government.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I said nothing of the kind, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his statement. I said that whilst not wishing to comment on the discussion on the points of order, because I did not take


part in that debate, and had, therefore, forfeited the moral right to comment on them afterwards, I thought that the wisest and most intelligent course was to proceed in the way proposed so that the Committee, by a decision of the House, could have a free discussion on all Amendments which it wished to consider. That is what I said—no less, and no more.

Mr. Lane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. That is precisely what I understood, and I believe that it supports the appeal which we are making to the Secretary of State. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say whether he agrees with the three assumptions which I have made, subject to the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Many of my hon. Friends have put in clear fashion the questions to which we shall want answers from the Minister either tonight, or when the Committee reconvenes. Listening to the debate, I have been anything but reassured,because it seems that hon. Gentlemen opposite are inclined to say that if something goes wrong, and the Government are defeated, it is sufficient to bend, or even to change, the rules so that the majority can vote to put the thing right. As a safeguard for free speech, there are rules of procedure and Standing Orders to which we adhere, otherwise the thing becomes a free-for-all and no one has any rights. Indeed, everyone could start speaking at once.
The importance of going back to precedent is to draw upon the collective wisdom of the House in seeking to find a way out of what seems to be a great difficulty. I do not say that it is an impossible difficulty. This situation arose —and it is I think without precedent—because the Bill became meaningless and, therefore, meaning had to be put back into it. The House had to devise a way of doing that. I think we all agree that the will of the majority must prevail, but only with due regard and respect for the rights of the minority.
That means that it must be done in an appropriate and seemly way. Previous Recommittal Motions to a former Committee show a punctilious exactness as to what that former Committee was to

do. There was never more than a dotting of constitutional i's and crossing of t's, in each case disposed of in less than one sitting. Now, it seems that we have more than one sitting ahead of us.
Never has an Instruction been given that a Committee should eat its words or go back on its decision. The Secretary of State moved that we should report our difficulty to the House and say that we could make no further progress. We have been slapped in the face by a Government Motion to give us powers to do something which we cannot normally do—go back on a decision and job backwards. If we made a habit of this, we would never make any progress at all—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this has arisen by accident and not political division? If there had been a political difference in the Committee, if the Government had lost their majority, and they had then come back to the House, the situation would have been quite different, but this is an accident.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Member can call any vote an accident, but the record shows that the Committee reached a valid decision. It will not show why hon. Members were absent who might have been present to support the Government [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to deny it, but some hon. Members who were absent had spoken in a critical way of the Clause. We cannot tell why someone did not vote; nor can the record. When, in future, someone has to look back to 1970, as we have looked back to 1930 for a similar situation in Standing Committee, he will not see why hon. Members did not vote but only that a Standing Comittee came to a valid decision.
There is no question of this being ultra vires, or invalid. People reading Erskine May in future will ask why the Government of the day chose this means of enabling the will of the House to be expressed. He will think it curious that the procedure should have strained precedent and produced an Instruction of a wholly new quality which seeks to give a Committee a power to replace a power which it had exhausted by reaching a decision.
All that prevents the Instruction from being out of order is that the Committee had already decided the question of Clause 1. If we had not, the Instruction must have been out of order under Standing Order No. 42, which has made most Instructions out of order because they instruct a Committee to do something which it could do anyhow. Those who study these things closely in future may decide that the Government did this as a political expedient to save time. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Penistone that it is necessary to invent a new procedure. The Government could have recommitted this Clause to the whole House, which is the proper higher authority. That would accord with precedent—

Mr. John Mendelson: I repeat my argument for the hon. Gentleman's benefit—as a matter of judgment, the Committee will be able to do its work intelligently, in a way which will add to the standing of the House, by the procedure chosen, because it will be debating the essential principle de nouveau and will have dealt with that when it turns to the other parts of the Bill. That is why this is a good procedure. The hon. Gentleman must not allege reasons for me which I have not given.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman says we are debating the principle de nouveau. Had he been on the Committee, he would realise that we were not opposing the principle and that practically all our debates concerned the exceptions to that.
One reason for this difficulty is the drafting. It would have been much luckier if the principle had been enshrined in a separate Clause. It is enshrined in Clause 1(1) which the Committee passed without amendment, but subsection (2) contains the Government list of exceptions. All our debates, and the Amendment successfully moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworfth (Sir E. Boyle), concerned additions to and modifications of the Government's own list. Unfortunately, since both the principle and the exceptions were in Clause 1, we can wrongly be said to have defeated the principle. That was not the Committee's intention—the intention was to widen the exceptions and make the Bill more flexible.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that our attempts in this direction—which he may think are desirable in the light of more and more evidence coming forward each day as the people who have to operate the proposed system make representations about the practical difficulties—can be considered in the ordinary way. The appropriate course, more consonant with the dignity and traditions of Parliament, would be to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House.
It has been said that this is a weak and puny Bill. The Government may today save it from being still-born, but I am sure that it will not last long enough to reach nursery school age. None the less, it is important for our traditions that we should operate a proper procedure. I submit that this Instruction is clearly wrong, even if it is held to be in order.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: The Leader of the House said that, unless the Instruction were accepted, we should be directing the Committee to a task which did not make sense. I fully agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) has just said: what we are now doing makes even less sense. The sort of language used by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) shows exactly what I have in mind. He said, in effect, " Come, come. This is a small slip. There was a snap Division and, anyway, this is a little Bill and accidents do happen."
That sort of language is precisely the way in which we, as Parliament, cannot afford to treat any legislation. We have to take the rules and practices of the House seriously. There may be occasions when for some reason the Government of the day face a result other than that for which they wished. That is precisely what debate here is about. It is no good anyone just saying, " Oh, someone was away." We all know that a degree of importance is set by any hon. Member in the House on any Measure, and it is at least indicative of the situation when something like this occurs. No purpose is served in ridiculing it.
My second point is that it can hardly be said that there was a snap Division after seven sittings of the Committee.
Thirdly, a considerable nonsense is created in the eyes of the whole educational world. Anyone looking at the proceedings in the Committee will see that there was some very detailed discussion and some very good educational arguments. We are making a mockery of our procedures if all that discussion and argument has to be gone through again because the Committee is told to proceed as though none of that debate had been taken into account at all.
The House should not be treated lightly. The Instruction ridicules all our procedures. The least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to say here and now that, far from wanting to hurry the Bill as fast as he can, careful note has been and will be taken of events outside—the Donnison Committee, and so on—and the various points that have already been made in the Standing Committee.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: It is much too simple to say that the defeat of the Clause in Committee was accidental. For some time now the Government have been running about 10 Standing Committees, as well as the two Grand Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has referred to the number of occasions in just two Committees when Clauses have been saved by the Chairman's casting vote.
What the Government have been doing, in order to turn the House of Commons into a sort of legislative sausage machine before a General Election, has been to set up a number of Committees of small membership in which the hostility or detachment of one, two or three members is of unusual significance. The priority decided upon has been indicated by the attitude of hon. Members to Government legislation. I do not criticise that situation. I quite approve of the order of priorities which some of them have adopted. This attitude of detachment, almost of insouciance, to legislation is to be encouraged.
But what the Government now propose is that if they are defeated by a narrow

majority in one of the small Committees they are entitled to ask the House for the debate and vote to take place again in the hope of getting a majority on the second occasion. The corollary is that if the Opposition are defeated by a small majority, they are, presumably, entitled to ask the House to allow the debate and vote to be taken again. That would be a very remarkable state of affairs.
The Leader of the House might consider that that is the direction in which he is leading us in moving Motions which are without precedent in the procedural history of the House, and using our procedure and Standing Orders for a purpose for which they have never been used before. If the Government are defeated in Committee, the only respectable thing to do is to try to put things right on the Floor of the House by appealing to the general body of Members. Instead of that, the Government seek to tuck the Clause back in the Bill again in the relative privacy of a Committee Room rather than in the publicity of the Floor of the House.
Another aspect of the procedural Motion should not be overlooked. The Bill is being put forward for propagandist purposes, inasmuch as it cannot come into effect before the General Election. In those circumstances, it is a waste of the time of the House to have been discussing the Bill at all in the summer of 1970, and it is an abuse of our procedure to seek by this Motion to discuss it twice.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: There are two points that I want to put, one to the Secretary of State and the other to the Leader of the House. My point to the Secretary of State is about the conduct he envisages for the Committee when it resumes. There was a little discussion earlier about the meaning of the Instruction, but I think that I can ask the Secretary of State to clear up what in his and the Government's mind the Instruction means.
What seems to be its inevitable meaning is that the Bill can be considered again ab initio in its entirety. That must be so, because we will have recommitted the Bill to the former Committee with no limitation.
The words in the Instruction are:
…notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 …they have power


to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect.
That, as I read it, is merely saying, " If you thought that you were to be inhibited by something, you are not ". In other words, the Instruction merely removes what might be a possible inhibition on the discussions of the Committee.
The Committee has disagreed the Clause 1, but it is to be allowed to say, " Despite the fact that we have disagreed on Clause 1, we can go ahead and deal with it again ". So any reading of the two Motions must mean that there need be no limitation whatever to the discussion ab initio by the former Committee on recommittal of the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will be kind enough to confirm my understanding, or, if it is not correct, to explain to what extent it is not correct.
My second point, which is about procedure, I put to the Leader of the House. It is a point that has already been made by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The right procedure should surely have been to bring this matter to a Committee of the whole House. This is really a very important point. It bears upon the public standing of Parliament. It is fair to recall that at the present proceedings in Standing Committees are far from satisfactory. There are too many Committees. There are too many Bills. The constant use of the Chairman's casting vote on occasion after occasion in more than one Committee during recent weeks is a great danger to our whole procedure. The Government must take that danger very seriously.
The point I have in mind, which is serious and important, is that our democratic system in Parliament works by giving dictatorial powers, in form and substance, to the party in power at the time. That is the meaning of parliamentary democracy. The party in power at the time has dictatorial powers, ultimately, to push through the House anything it wishes to push through. But the system only works and can only be tolerated, if those dictatorial powers are used with discretion and are seen to be used with a proper respect for the views of minorities and for the right of the House on occasions to get the Govern-

ment to change their mind. We must, therefore, avoid anything that looks like a rubber stamp procedure, but what is proposed really does look very much like a rubber stamping procedure.
I agree that when a Committee has made an Amendment which the Government do not like the Government can get the Committee's decision reversed on the Floor of the House by appealing from the Committee to the House as a whole. On this occasion, however, the Government are appealing from the Committee to the Committee, and that is a very bad arrangement. The Government, are, in effect, saying to the Committee, " You must think again about a decision you took ". People say that it was an accident, but the point is not whether it was accident, folly, or bad organisation. We cannot, and have not the right, to look beyond what happened. It was a recorded decision taken by a vote of the Committee. The Government say, " You must look at this again ". They are not saying, as I thought they might, " You must look at it again because you have acted ultra vires".
Earlier, the Leader of the House pointed out that there was a doubt about this matter and made two conflicting quotations from Erskine May. The Government are not saying, " This is ultra vires. Therefore, you must reverse your decision ". They are saying, " You must reconsider it ". What is the point of saying that to the Committee unless it means that it must change its previous decision? What happens if the Committee comes to the same decision again? In Committee, if a couple of Members fall ill, it can immediately change the situation. It is possible for the same thing to happen again. What would the Secretary of State and the Government do then. If the Committee again produced a result which the Government did not like, would we have another Instruction?
Are the Government telling the Committee to think again, or are they, as I think, telling it what to decide, which would be completely wrong? If we set up a Committee, we must rely on its discretion, to debate within the rules of order, to take decisions and to report to the House. The House then, if it likes, can overthrow its decisions. But to say to a Committee, " We propose to put back to


you what you have decided and to tell you to appeal against yourself and to reverse the decision " is making a rubber stamp of the Committee procedure.
I ask for answers from the Government on those two points. First, I should like an assurance about the procedure which will be followed in the Standing Committee when it reconvenes. Secondly, I should like the Government to explain why they should not have pursued the far more logical course of bringing to the Floor of the House an appeal against the Committee's decision.

6.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): I shall try to reply to all the points which have been made from both sides of the House.
The hon. Lady the Member for Finch-ley (Mrs. Thatcher) complained that the Bill was going to a Committee on an unknown date and at an unknown time. That is always the case when the House sends a Bill to Committee. There is nothing unusual about that. The hon. Lady then complained that the Instruction which we are discussing has an unknown meaning. I cannot agree with that. I agree with you, Mr. Speaker: if English words have any meaning at all, the meaning is perfectly clear. The Instruction says:
… notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect ".
I suspect that a good many hon. Members have not read Clause 1, which is the essence and guts of the Bill. It requires local authorities,
in the exercise of any power for the purpose of fulfilling 
duties under Section 8 of the Education Act, 1944, to
 have regard to the need for securing that secondary education is provided only in schools where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on…selection.
Clearly, the wording of the Instruction does not confine the Committee. This is the trap which hon. Members have fallen into. Almost all hon. Members have envisaged one wording—the Clause as it originally stood, or the amended form of it.
What the House is instructing the Committee to do—or giving it the right to do, because that is all it amounts to—is to reinsert a Clause which will have the like effect—that is, to lay this duty on local authorities. It could be drafted in quite different wording, provided that it has the same effect. This is perfectly clear.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I see what the right hon. Gentleman means about the operative part of the Clause being in subsection (1). But would he agree that the substantial meaning of that is dependent on the amplitude of subsection (2), which is the list of exceptions. Therefore, we would not be putting in something " of the like effect " if we did not reproduce the general effect of the exceptions.

Mr. Short: This is a matter for the Chair in Committee, but I should have thought that the essence of the matter was in subsection (1), which lays on local authorities the duty to have regard to something in carrying on their duties under the 1944 Act.

Sir E. Boyle: Sir E. Boyle rose—

Mr. Short: I cannot give way all the time.

Sir E. Boyle: When putting forward a new Clause 1 to the Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the Amendment which was carried to the old Clause 1, which does not in any way negative the general principle of subsection (1)?

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) with his final words. It does not in any way change the principle or the effect. In other words, the exceptions are peripheral to the main question. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: " Answer."] I will answer the right hon. Gentleman. I always take account of what he says about education, and I will take account of what he and his colleagues have said today. However, I hope that they will bear in mind that I have to consider the rules which the Chair uses for the selection of Amendments.
The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley asked me what the rules for selection would be. She knows as well as I do that I have nothing to do with


the selection of Amendments in Committee. That is entirely a matter for the Chair. She asked whether I would object to Amendments. If the same Amendments which we discussed over eight Sittings of the Committee are tabled again, I shall abide by the Chair's interpretation of the rules, as I must. If the Chair decides—and here I reply to the point of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—that we should start ab initio, I would abide by that ruling. If the Amendments are called by the Chair, they will be discussed. But this is a matter, not for me, but for the Chair.

Mr. Maudling: Then it follows from that, does it, that the Chair, when the Committee considers the Bill again, will be in exactly the same position as it was when the Bill was first considered? It will not be inhibited by the Instruction?

Mr. Short: That is not for me; it is entirely a matter for the Chair. I hope that the House will give the Committee an Instruction. It will then be for the Chair to interpret that Instruction in Committee. I should have thought that the Instruction was perfectly clear.
The hon. Lady the Member for Finch-ley asked what amount of freedom the Committee would have. The amount of freedom which we have in the House or in Committee is decided entirely by the rules of order as interpreted by the Chair and not by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The hon. Lady said that the Opposition co-operated in Committee. They did co-operate. The debates which we had over eight sittings were excellent. Before the Committee finally rose, I paid tribute to it for the way in which it had discussed the Amendments.
The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends are being quite illogical. She went out of her way to say that we could not continue with the Committee if the Clause was left out. Yet she and her hon. Friends are opposing the reinsertion of the Clause. They cannot have it both ways.

Mrs. Thatcher: I supported the right hon. Gentleman in his Motion to the effect that the Committee should not further consider the Bill. For that reason, I oppose its recommittal to the same Committee.

Mr. Short: As we are making parliamentary history, we may as well have this

on the record for posterity. After I moved the Motion in Committee, the hon. Lady said:
I rise to support the Minister in his decision but not in his reasoning. It was right to take this course of action. Indeed, under all the circumstances, it was the only reasonable course to take.

Mrs. Thatcher: indicated assent.

Mr. Short: The hon. Lady agrees. But she said that after I had said:
I should like to make it perfectly clear that the Government intend that the Bill shall reach the Statute Book in the present Parliamentary Session. What I am doing now is not dictated by the rules of order—it would be quite possible to go on with the Bill—but it is dictated by good parliamentary manners that we should report this position to the House and begin again. It will then be for the House to decide what action should be taken. I should like to make that perfectly clear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 16th April, 1970; c. 326–27.]
The House is now deciding what action to take. It is on that basis that the hon. Lady said:
I rise to support the Minister…".
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—I am sorry that he has had to leave, but he has explained the reason—said that we were creating a dangerous precedent; indeed, he said that it was dangerous to create a precedent. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would be the first to agree that it is because the rules of the House are flexible that we can create precedents to meet unexpected situations which are arising all the time. I have been here for 20 years; and I meet something new in the rules of procedure almost every week. It is because we have this flexibility that we can cope with new situations.
Our rules consist of two parts. There are the formalised rules of procedure, and there are precedents created by the Chair. The precedents are just as binding as the formalised rules. It is a philosophical question whether precedent extends the rules or merely interprets them. I think that we in Parliament work on the basis that it does the latter, although in common law I am inclined to think that it does the former. However, when the law of Parliament consists partly of precedent it becomes just as binding as the rules of procedure.
If the House has decided a principle, as it did on 12th February by a majority


of 74, we cannot allow a Standing Committee of 20 Members to upset that principle by a majority of one. That is not democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) effectively replied to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) seemed to think that it was normal democratic parliamentary practice for this to happen. I do not. If the House decides a principle by a majority of 74, somehow or other it ought not to allow a Standing Committee to upset that principle.
The right hon. Member for Handsworth asked what kind of procedure we envisaged in the Committee; did we intend Clause 1 as amended or Clause 1 unamended? I pointed out in reply to the hon. Lady that what the wording of the Instruction binds us to is that the new Clause shall have the same effect as the old one, but it does not bind us to either wording. As I said when the right hon. Gentleman interjected, I will consider what has been said today, if he will bear in mind that in my consideration I must consider the rules which govern the Report stage as well.
A number of hon. Members opposite have referred to the Donnison Report. They have said that they may wish to consider Amendments which were not obvious before the report was published. It will be for the Chairman to decide whether such Amendments are in order. What I am so grateful for is that the Conservative Party recognises the magnificent case for comprehensive schools which the Donnison Report makes. It is one of the best cases for the comprehensive school I have read anywhere.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: Then let us debate it.

Mr. Short: I would like it to be debated. I am greatly in favour of a wide-ranging national debate on this issue between now and the General Election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) referred to the occasion when the Conservative Government lost the whole Finance Bill through sheer ineptitude one evening. My hon. Friend did not point out—I do

not know whether it is generally known—that the Leader of the Opposition was then the Deputy Chief Whip, so he was responsible for this—just as he was President of the Board of Trade when we had a deficit of £800 million.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that this was squalid practice—squalid practice, presumably, to ensure that a decision of the House by a majority of 74 is not overridden by a Committee of 20 with a majority of one. If the hon. Gentleman calls that squalid practice, he knows little about squalor.
We could have bulldozed this through the Committee. We could have gone ahead certainly, but we chose to bring it back to the Floor of the House. As I have proved by reading the Report, I was supported by the hon. Lady. We did so because the debate would have been meaningless without Clause 1. As I pointed out, we could have amended Clause 2 to make it rather more meaningful, but it would still have been a dull and empty debate.
For this reason, not because of the rules of order, we decided to bring it back to the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I considered all the possibilities; and we had some talks through the usual channels. I am not suggesting that the Opposition committed themselves to anything, but we had all the normal discussions about the matter.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) complained about the very large number of Standing Committees. This is not a matter for me. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has not made clear what the procedure in Committee will be. He seemed to be talking as if the Committee would have to insert a Clause in the Bill like the original Clause 1. As I understand, the Instruction says that the Committee has the power so to insert. Presumably, it has an equal power to insert an entirely different Clause if it so wishes.

Mr. Short: The Committee has not the power to insert an entirely different Clause. It has the power to insert a


Clause with like effect, but not a Clause with a different effect. That is perfectly clear.

Mr. Maudling: Surely if the Bill is recommitted the Committee has power to amend the Bill in any way it wants. The Instruction, as I understand it, does not take any power from the Committee; it denies it no power. There is nothing in the Instruction about denying a power to the Committee. It merely says that the Committee has power to put back what it voted out previously, notwithstanding that it voted against it. There is nothing in that which limits the normal powers of a Committee to refuse to put in a Clause like the previous Clause 1.

Mr. Short: I am talking about the effect of the Instruction, which is what I thought the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to do.

Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State has it wrong.

Mr. Short: No. I have it right. The Instruction empowers the Committee to insert a Clause with like effect. There are the normal rules of procedure. If somebody tables a new Clause, the Chairman will have to decide whether it is in order to discuss it. That is not a matter for me in the House.

Mr. Maudling: This is a very important point. Does the Secretary of State say, or does he not say, that the words
 have power to insert in the Bill 
mean that the Committee has not the power to refuse to insert it?

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is saying quite different things. The Committee has the power to vote against it and reject it. There may be another accident, certainly. The right hon. Gentleman is changing his ground and wriggling, as the Opposition always do.

Mr. Maudling: I have made the point five times.

Mr. Short: No. The right hon. Gentleman made two quite different points.

What he asked me before was whether the Instruction would enable the Committee to include a Clause with different effect. I say that it will not. It will enable the Committee to vote against the Clause and, if necessary, reject it. The fate of any other Clause will be governed by the rules of procedure as interpreted by the Chairman.

The question of the number of Standing Committees is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Government have a very large and imaginative legislative programme and I want to make it quite clear to the House that we intend to get it through. We were elected to get it through, and we intend to do so.

It has been said that this is a propaganda Bill. The Bill is vitally important to tens of thousands of young children who are still each year being subjected to the tremendous injustice of the 11-plus, which the Tory Party intends to preserve.

In conclusion, the principle of the Bill has been endorsed in four General Elections out of the seven since the war. It has been endorsed by the House on a number of occasions. It was endorsed on 12th February. Parliament cannot allow it to be defeated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton called " an accident upstairs ". As an ex-Chief Whip, I do not excuse the accident—by no means. It ought not to have occurred, but it occurred because one Member was ill, another Member thought that he was paired when he was not, and another Member went up to the Private Bill Office. The Opposition Whip got into the Committee Room for the Division by the skin of his teeth. If the doors had been closed 10 seconds earlier, he would have been locked out, and the result would have been quite different.

The Bill must reach the Statute Book this Session and the Government intend to see that it does.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 219.

Division No. 102.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)


Albu, Austen
Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice


Alldritt, Walter
Ashley, jack
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Allen, Scholcfield
Ashton, joe (Bassetlaw)
Barnes, Michael 




Barnett, Joel
Gregory, Arnold
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Baxter, William
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Maxwell, Robert


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Meilish, Rt. Kn. Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John


Binns, John
Hamling, William
Mikardo. Ian


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moonman, Eric


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Booth, Albert
Haseldine Norman
Morris Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boston, Terence
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hazell, Bert
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brooks, Edwin
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Neal, Harold


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hobden, Dennis
Newens, Stan


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Norwood, Christopher


Brown, R.W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Horner, John
Oakes, Gordon


Buchanan, Norman
Hougton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Halloran, Michael


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
O'Malley. Brian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Oram, Albert E.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice


Carmichael, Neil
Huges, Rt. Hn. Clewyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huges, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Conlan, Bernard
Hynd, John
Padly Walter


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cronin, John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Paget, R. T.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Palmer, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dalyell, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Park, Trevor


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Bier)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dewar, Donald Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawler, Wallace
Probert, Arthur


Dickens, James
Lawson, George
Randall, Harry


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Rankin, John


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn


Dunn, James A.
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnatt, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick(Newton)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, John (Reading)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul


Ellis, John
Luard Evan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


English, Michael
Lubbock, Eric
Ryan, John


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McBride, Neil
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Faulds, Andrew
McCann, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Finch, Harold
MacColl, James
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacDermot, Niall
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foley, Maurice
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, J.


Foot. Rt Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Foot Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Slater, Joseph


Ford Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Forrester John
Mackie, John
Snow, Julian


Fowler, Gerry
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gardner, Tony
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Garrett W. E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Golding, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Symonds, J. B.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George







Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Tinn, James
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Winnick, David


Tomney, Frank
Weitzman, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Tuck, Raphael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Urwin, T. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene
Woof, Robert


Varley, Eric G.
Wilkins, W. A.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mr. R F. H. Dobson and


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Wallace, George
Willis, Rt. Hn. George





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Clover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Astor, John
Glyn, Sir Richard
Miscampbell, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Balniel, Lord
Grant, Anthony
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bell, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Neave, Airey


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Biffen, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Health, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peyton, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Braine, Bernard
Hilley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hodern, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Channon H P G
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Royle, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
King, Tom
Sharples, Richard


Cordle, John
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Silvester, Frederick


Costain, A. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Sinclair, Sir George


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith Dudley {W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lane, David
Smith John (London &amp; W'minster)


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Doughty, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Waddington, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Walters, Dennis


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene







Weatherill, Bernard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Younger, Hn. George


Welis, John (Maidstone)
Woodnutt, Mark



Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wiggin, A. W.
Wright, Esmond
Mr. Jasper More and


Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Ordered,

That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee A that, notwithstanding that they havedisagreed to Clause I of the Education Bill, they have

disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, they have to insert in the Bill Provisions with a like effect.

Orders of the Day — EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: As is my wont, I have had posted my provisional selection of Amendments. We shall take first new Clause 1.

New Clause 1

SERVICE PAY

(1) The Secretary of State or Defence Council shall not make, or recommend to Her Majesty the making of, any instrument relating to the terms and conditions of service of members of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown or of any women's service administered by the Defence Council, if the instrument has the effect of making a distinction, as regards pay, allowances or leave, between men and women who are members of those forces or of any such service, not being a distinction fairly attributable to differences between the obligations undertaken by men and those undertaken by women as such members as aforesaid.

(2) The Secretary of State or Defence Council may refer to the Industrial Court for their advice any question whether a provision made or proposed to be made by any such instrument as is referred to in subsection (1) above ought to be regarded for purposes of this section as making a distinction not permitted by that subsection.—[Mrs. Castle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.23 p.m.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am glad that we are starting this evening's proceedings on the same harmonious note on which we finished in Committee. I might almost say that this is where we went out, for the final business before the Standing Committee was a debate on a new Clause put down by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and his hon. Friends in an effort to find a way to have the Bill applied in the Armed Forces. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was particularly enamoured of his Clause. Indeed, he said:
 We have been thrown back on to this form of words to try to find some way of ensuring that there is at least included in the

Bill the provision that the Armed Forces shall have equal pay ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 17th March, 1970; c. 347.]
Although I opposed that Clause in Committee, I sympathised with the hon. Gentleman in both his purpose and his difficulty in finding an appropriate way of applying the Bill to the Armed Forces. I promised—he withdrew his Motion on my assurance—that we should continue to work hard to try to overcome the drafting difficulties and we should if at all possible, table our own new Clause at this stage. This we have done, and I hope that the House will think that we have made a good job of it.
There has not been any disagreement between the two sides of the House on what we are seeking to do here. We have all been anxious to ensure that the principles of the Bill are applied in the Armed Forces. I pointed out on Second Reading that in its Report on the Armed Forces in June, 1969, the Prices and Incomes Board had recommended the application of equal pay in the Armed Forces, and in its report of February this year the board spelled out how Government policy with regard to equal pay was being applied in the recommendations for a new military salary structure. We are all confident that the Government are determined to apply this principle in the Services.
We wanted to find a way to have the Armed Forces committed to equal pay under the Bill, but there have always been two difficulties in the way. The first lay in the constitutional position and the pay arrangements for the Services. As the House knows, Army and Air Force pay is fixed under the Royal Prerogative through the Royal Warrants, and there is no statutory backing for it except in the case of the Navy. Also, there is the difficulty regarding the method of enforcement. We all agreed, I think that it would not be appropriate for an individual woman member of the women's Services to be able to take the Secretary of State for Defence before an industrial tribunal to argue whether she had or had not received equal pay for broadly similar work or work rated as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme.
The Opposition had two goes in Committee at trying to solve the problem. They were not very happy about either. I hope that they will be happy with this


Clause and that we shall be able to pass it without protracted discussion. The Clause would prohibit distinctions as regards pay, allowances or leave between men and women in the forces, providing that
 The Secretary of State or Defence Council shall not make, or recommend … the making of, any instrument
which discriminates, which
 has the effect of making a distinction, as regards pay, allowances or leave, between men and women… members of those forces…not being a distinction fairly attributable to differences between the obligations undertaken by men and those undertaken by women as such members as aforesaid ".
I should explain why the phrase " pay, allowances or leave " is used instead of the phrase " terms and conditions of employment ", which is used elsewhere in the Bill. A moment's thought will show why we have to do it in this way. Pay, allowances and leave are the equivalent in the Services of terms and conditions; they are the only matters referred to in the pay instruments, and Service conditions are laid down in the disciplinary code. This, therefore, is the parallel here.
However, we have to make a slight qualification at the end of subsection (I) of the Clause, for two reasons. There are clear-cut distinctions between men and women in the Services which it is impossible to ignore—for example, in their liability to bear arms, the terms of their contract of service, the codes of discipline to which they are subjected and their liability to serve overseas. The women's services are distinct from the men's services and there are separate instruments laying down their rates of pay. We have to allow for that.
7.30 p.m.
But I emphasise that that does not mean that equal pay is being only partially introduced in the forces. We are saying that in the forces equal pay will be introduced for work of equal value, which is fully in accord with the principle of the Bill. But service in the forces is clearly different in character from employment in industry, and we have to take that into account in the drafting of the Clause. That is one of the reasons why we made provision in subsection (2) for the Secretary of State or the Defence

Council to consult the Industrial Court on any question which arises. That will give us the assurance that equal pay will be introduced fairly, in accordance with the obligations laid on the Secretary of State in subsection (1).

Mr. John Nott: Could the right hon. Lady give me one example, for instance, of a " Wren " doing comparable work which would merit equal pay with that of a naval rating?

Mrs. Castle: I recommend the hon. Member to read the February report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. It analyses in great detail the way in which these principles of equal pay for work of equal value can be and should be applied in the armed services. I am sure that that will give the hon. Member the answer which he seeks.
I hope that the House agrees that we have kept our promise and that all those concerned have shown some ingenuity in doing so. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in helping us to work out what I think is a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Philip Holland: I express my warmest thanks to the right hon. Lady for keeping the promise she made in Committee to bring the Armed Forces within the scope of the Bill. I confess that last week I had some misgivings that she would find the task too difficult. I have some idea of the difficulties involved, and I was worried that she might not be able to overcome them all and that we might again have the rather difficult debate on this subject that we had in Committee. I much admire her ingenuity and that of her advisers.
I feel that the Clause covers all the requirements in this respect comprehensively and that there should be no argument in the future that the forces have not equality of treatment with people outside the forces. That is very desirable. I thank her again for producing the Clause.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: While I welcome the Clause, I wish to put one question arising from it. Some years ago the then Minister of Defence, questioned by me about equal pay in the forces, pointed out that while all other things might be equal, the men had different obligations from those of the


women. He used the word " obligations ", and it is used in the Clause. He pointed out that in the event of war men might be obliged to bear arms and to risk their lives in battle, and that therefore he could not equate the obligations of the men with those of the women. In peace time they are obviously doing work of equal value—indeed, the same work. If there were to be a war, would the men and women be on different pay bases in war time?

Mr. Keith Speed: I, too, welcome the ingenious way in which the right hon. Lady and her Department have achieved what we all tried to achieve in Committee. I had the honour of moving the original Amendment, which I was the first to admit was far from satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) tried to introduce a new Clause, which was also defective. With the expertise available to the Department, the right hon. Lady has gone a long way to overcoming the difficulties.
May I answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I can speak only of the Navy, but there are W.R.N.S. radar plotters working in shore establishments alongside male radar plotters and doing exactly the same work, and there are W.R.N.S. cooks, W.R.N.S. stewardesses, W.R.N.S. photographic experts and W.R.N.S. meteorological experts doing the same work as their male counterparts. The only difference is that, on the whole, the Wrens " serve only in shore establishments whereas their male counterparts may go to sea. If the result of the Clause were to send " Wrens " to sea, I would say, as an ex-member of the Naval Reserve, that we should be prepared to welcome it, although I do not know whether the " Wrens " would then be entitled to hard-lying allowance.
I am sure that there are many similar examples from the other Services. In war, members of the A.T.S. worked on antiaircraft guns. Women were doing exactly the same work and bearing exactly the same responsibility as their male counterparts.

Mr. Nott: I understand what my hon. Friend says about the activities of those involved, but the suggestion is not that " Wrens " and naval ratings should be paid according to the activities which they

are performing. They will be paid according to their rank and seniority. Is not that normally the case?

Mr. Speed: Yes, but if an ordinary " Wren " is working alongside an ordinary seaman, doing the same job, in a shore establishment, I hope that they will get the same pay. Presumably a leading " Wren " or third officer " Wren " would get the appropriate pay, equal to that of a leading seaman or a sub-lieutenant.

Mr. Holland: The new Clause refers clearly to " obligations ". That is the criterion.

Mr. Speed: Exactly. I think that there is no difficulty, but I was trying to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. Those with recent Service experience will appreciate that there are many cases in which people are doing exactly the same work. I believe that, on the whole, women's pay has been about 75 per cent. of men's pay, although in certain trades and skills there has been an even bigger differentiation. I welcome the Clause, which is an auspicious start to the proceedings this evening.

Sir Douglas Glover: We all congratulate the right hon. Lady on the new Clause. I was not a member of the Committee, and a point which occurs to me concerns referring the question of Service pay to the industrial court. Surely in the Services it is easy to allocate pay on an equal basis, because military ranks are involved, and if a person is doing the same work as others in that rank, it should be possible for the Government to ensure that equal pay is paid. Why might it be necessary for the Secretary of State to refer somebody else in the Government to the industrial court for not doing what it is surely simple to do? Many of the titles in the Services are now the same. At one time women officers were called commanders, whereas the respective men officers were majors or colonels. But most of the ranks are now given the same name. If the women have the same titles, basically they should be drawing the same pay.

Mr. Robert Carr: I would like to thank the right hon. Lady for bringing forward this new Clause and


also to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) in congratulating her on overcoming what we know were the very real difficulties in meeting the point which we all wanted to meet.
I am equally glad that we have started these proceedings in such a harmonious way and trust that we shall continue in the same vein. It must seem strange to the right hon. Lady to hear us being so nice to her. This just shows how fair and objective we are. I am sure that she will realise that we are equally fair and objective when, as is often the case, we criticise her severely. We will always strive to be fair and objective and we hope that we can thank her even more in the future.

Mrs. Castle: May I reply briefly to the two points that have been raised. First, may I deal with that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). As I said in moving the Clause, there are different obligations in the Services and it is only right that they should be reflected in the remuneration. This was covered in the P.I.B. report by what it called the " X " factor, which is liability to service and so on, and this operates equally in war and peace. It covers the fact that if war comes men might have a liability that the woman would not.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), I want to put this quite straight. He asked why did I have to refer another colleague to the Industrial Court. I will not do anything of the kind. He has misunderstood subsection (2). It merely empowers the Secretary of State for Defence or the Defence Council to ask the advice of the Industrial Court in helping them to be sure that they have interpreted correctly the principles of the Bill and applied them aright to the Armed Forces.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN IN SAME EMPLOYMENT

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Holland: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out ' that has been '.
We withdrew this Amendment in Committee on an undertaking from the Under-Secretary that he would be prepared to take this matter back and reconsider it. The amended Notice Paper gives us no indication that he has done so and we therefore propose once again to delete these three unnecessary and confusing words from this part of the Bill. The Under-Secretary will recall that he was urged in Committee to do this, not only by myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends, but also by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
Alliances between the hon. Gentleman and hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House are rare but none the less welcome. When they do occur I would have thought that the Under-Secretary might have considered that he had adequate grounds for taking the view that there was some logic behind the argument. As the Under-Secretary has not tabled an Amendment dealing with this, I can only hope that he has decided to accept our Amendment to delete what I regard as three clearly unnecessary, misleading and distracting words from the Clause.
Either the words are totally unnecessary, adding nothing to the sense of the subsection, or they mean that if, for example, in 1960 a form of evaluation was carried out which resulted in bad and anomalous ratings—and this was subsequently followed during the years till 1970 by negotiated settlements to put the anomalies right, then the basis for comparison must be the original ratings that have been made at any moment of time in the past, rather than the more recently negotiated settlements.
It seems to be a bit of a nonsense, particularly as this part of the Bill is specifically tied in with job evaluation in subsection (5) on page 2. It gives priority to any pseudo-job evaluated


rating from the earliest days of experimentation in this area over any current negotiated agreement.
The Under-Secretary of State has established a reputation for being prepared to listen to reason. I ask him to move just one stage further and not just to listen to reason, but to accept the logic of this Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): It might save time if I reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) at once. I must, first, recall that this was the first Amendment moved in Committee. In my anxiety to set the tone, although legal advice suggested that the words were necessary, I undertook to examine the words further. Again, legal advice was that these three words are absolutely necessary, because without them there may possibly be some ambiguity of purpose and meaning in the courts.
However, being anxious to follow the pattern which 1 hope I established in Committee, and anxious to continue the spirit of goodwill—we do not have to rely on Christmas for that—and not wishing to be thought in any sense to be renaging on even a half promise in Committee, can I set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest and tell him that we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am delighted to hear that despite the legal advice tendered to the hon. Gentleman he is prepared to accept our Amendment. We are grateful, because we felt that there was a great deal of validity behind our arguments in Committee. There is an atmosphere of good will here and I would add the Under-Secretary's name to the list of those who have been most helpful and co-operative throughout the Committee stage. We believe that as a result we made good progress and that the Bill is in some respects a better one because of the co-operation.
Despite the legal advice which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned I would submit that it was sensible to omit these words. The Clause now reads:

 for men and women employed on work rated as equivalent…
That makes much more sense than if the words
 that has been 
were included. Otherwise, once a job evaluation had been carried out, however far back in history, according to the interpretation of the Bill it would have held good. There would have been great difficulty, because of the out-of-date atmosphere attaching to job evaluation.
Job evaluation is in its infancy, it is an inexact science—

Mr. Stanley Orme: You have won.

Mr. Smith: I know, but it is worth while mentioning these points, because they were developed in Committee.
Because of these rapidly developing techniques it is wrong to commit ourselves to the job techniques of the past. There will undoubtedly be difficulties when this Bill comes into operation in 1975. No one has ever pretended that there would not be and it is important to get the Bill as clear and precise as possible. That is what we have attempted to do throughout Committee stage and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman that at this very important and early stage of the Bill he has conceded the point. We believe that as a result the Bill will operate more efficiently.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 30, at end insert:
' but nothing in this Section shall require an employer to give more favourable treatment to a woman employed at any establishment in Great Britain than is given to a man employed there on work rated as equivalent or which would be given to a man if one were to be engaged on such work at that establishment '.
This Amendment is in line with a different Amendment, but one which had a similar intention and which was debated at some length in Committee. Our objection to the Clause as it stands is that it would result in uniform rates of pay applying to men and women throughout the country. Regional differences, differences between the cost of living in London and the lower cost


of living in other parts of the country, would be completely ignored. There would be no compensation in wage rates for the additional expenses incurred by employees elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) gave examples of this in Committee and I will give some simpler ones to illustrate the evil here.
Let us take the case of a factory in London where the men's wages are £25 and the women's £15, and compare that with a similar factory belonging to another establishment in the same group of companies, situated in Scotland where the men receive £20 and the women £12. The result of the Clause as it stands would be that the women in the Scottish factory would be entitled to claim a wage equal to the men in the London factory, £25 a week. The men working alongside those women in Scotland whose pay had gone up from £12 to £25 a week would naturally want the same rate as their women counterparts. They too would want £25 a week, and they should have the same rate as the women. So the wage rates in those establishments in the same group would all rise to the maximum applicable in the group. It would follow that the rates in other factories not associated with the group but in the same areas would rise to keep pace, so we should have a massive escalation of wages and finish up with the national wage for men and women being the highest rate payable throughout the country.
In Committee the Under-Secretary of State denied that this could be so, relying largely on the words
…at which common terms and conditions of employment are observed…
He argued initially that it could not be said that the Scottish workers could claim the same rate as the London workers, because the terms and conditions of employment might not be the same. But under pressure he said that this was a matter to be resolved by the courts. Although he said that it was a commonly-used expression, he was not sure what
 common terms and conditions of employment 
would mean. His answer was that the courts would decide, with their experience in solving such problems.
This is not good enough. It is the duty of the House to express clearly and concisely what we intend the Clause to mean so that we hope there will be no need for anyone to go to the courts for interpretation. If we start off not knowing what we intend the Clause to mean and rely on the courts to try to find a meaning we make complete nonsense of our rôle as legislators. The hon. Gentleman expressed considerable doubts himself in Committee after a fairly lengthy debate in which a great deal of pressure was put on him.
The hon. Gentleman said:
…the courts have long experience in interpreting the phrase terms and conditions of employment '. I do not want to be dogmatic about whether the overall level of remuneration is a term of employment.
Later, he said:
 In reply to the question, Is the overall or global sum of remuneration a term of employment? ', I am saying that I do not know whether a court would rule that that was the case.
If remuneration is not a term of employment, the Clause will have the consequences to which I have referred. It will mean that as of right the highest rate payable in any part of the country would become the uniform rate for men and women throughout the country.
Later in the debate the hon. Gentleman said:
…if someone asked, ' Is not the level of total remuneration a term and condition of employment? ', I certainly would not say that that was necessarily, under this provision, a term of employment. Let us take two workers who in every other respect enjoy absolute equality of terms and conditions, whether they be male and female, or male and male, except that one appears to work on piecework and therefore has higher piecework earnings. That would not mean that they would not have the same terms and conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 19th February, 1970; c. 31–42.]
The hon. Gentleman's interpretation must result in the wages and remuneration, the total emoluments of the job, not being a term and condition of employment and not therefore being a distinguishing feature between the establishment in Scotland and the one in London. The natural consequence must be that the highest rate will apply.
The hon. Gentleman also resorted to the provisions of subsection (4)(b), relying on it to prevent some of the consequences to which I have referred. But we see


from later Amendments that subsection (4)(b) is now to be deleted, so that line of escape has gone.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, who constantly put this point to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, acknowledged that we would certainly support the object of the Clause, which is to prevent employers evading the Act by employing only women in one factory and only men in another, so that there is no comparison for the women to claim a higher wage rate. The Minister's logic was that if there were only women employed in an establishment, unless they could be compared with another establishment, it might be impossible for them to secure the equality of pay that would have been their right had there been men employed in the same work in the same establishment.
Our Amendment meets that very point. It is constructive and overcomes the difficulty. The last thing we wish to do is to leave legislation in such a form that we do not know what it means or what the Government intend it to mean. If it is their intention, as we believe it to be, that women doing broadly the same work as men should not be deprived of their rights under the Bill because there are no men in the same establishment doing that work, our Amendment will meet that point.
If these additional words are not inserted there will at best be a large area of doubt that will have to be resolved by the courts, or at worst—and this I fear would be the case—the interpretation I put on it in opening would follow, and the highest rate applicable in any part of the country would become the uniform rate of pay for that category of work for men and women. I am sure that that would be quite unacceptable to the Government, as it is to hon. Members on this side.

Mr. Holland: The real reason for the Amendment, as my hon Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) made clear, is that we cannot be sure what is meant by
 common terms and conditions of employment 
and to a degree these would include remuneration. I am still not clear what is meant by remuneration. It is easy to define if it is related to time workers,

because it is the remuneration for the standard working week, but when it is related to any one of the wide variety of premium, bonus or piece-rate schemes, it is necessary to have a standard or norm to compare like with like.
I wonder whether the
 terms and conditions of employment 
would involve the grade rate, or whatever may be the system employed in the company. Could the hon. Gentleman help us on that matter? The confusion and the anomalies created by imprecise definition as to the totality of the phrase will be more than the industrial system of this country can stand.
8.0 p.m.
The Minister has said that the Bill will do nothing to iron out the anomalies over regional differentials and variations in the bargaining systems as between one factory and another, or one district and another. Nor is it the purpose of the Bill to do anything about shortcomings in industrial relations or differences in the cost of living as between one region and another. Unless we do something about making the situation clearer and less ambiguous than simply relying on the phrase
 terms and conditions of employment 
we will run into all kinds of trouble in future.
The Amendment does not refer to
 terms and conditions of employment ",
but says that if a woman is doing the same work as a man in the same establishment then she shall be paid at the same rate. If, on the other hand, there is no man doing that work, she will be paid the same rate as a man. I am sure that is the basic intention of the Bill. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to look carefully at this matter to see if he can accept yet another Amendment from this side of the House.

Sir D. Glover: I cannot understand why the Under-Secretary of State has not said that he will accept the Amendment without further ado. Perhaps he intends to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) said that without something similar to the Amendment it would mean that in a particular occupation in an organisation the rates of pay would become the highest rates of pay obtaining.


These rates of pay vary enormously from district to district. We all know that when civil servants move to London they are upgraded, or if they work here they get a higher rate of pay.
It is surely not the intention under this legislation that a woman would be put in a more favourable position than a man and treated as a " most favoured nation " in the same way as applies to commercial treaties. In fact, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is not his intention nor that of his right hon. Friend, since such a move would create an inflationary situation. This applies particularly to the regions to which industry is being tempted to move. If women in development areas had to be paid the same rates as women are paid in London, the development area policy would not be successful for very much longer.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment or certainly its spirit, which I feel to be essential to the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker: I rise not to satisfy the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) but to disappoint him. I have the feeling that I have been at this point before. We spent a good deal of time in Committee dealing with this matter and I will not attempt to go over the same ground. The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) in moving the Amendment said that the Government's argument hinged entirely on the phrase in subsection (2)
 terms and conditions of employment 
as between establishments in which comparisons were being made.
I pointed in Committee to the difficulty which would arise if these provisions were absent from the Bill and if we were to restrict the basis of comparison to the single establishment. It would provide a loophole for an employer who was seeking to avoid the obligations imposed upon him by the Bill if he were to transfer his female operatives to some other establishment down the road. If, for instance, he employed 75 female press operatives and 25 male operatives in a department, the comparisons provided by the Bill would be destroyed if an employer were to transfer the 75 females to some other work place.

Sir D. Glover: Surely this is covered by the Amendment in the words:
… than is given to a man employed there on work rated as equivalent or which would be given to a man if one were to be engaged on such work at that establishment.
If he transferred women operatives, they would have to be paid at the rate which men were paid to do that work.

Mr. Walker: I do not follow the hon. Member's line of argument. The Amendment says:
 If one were to be engaged on such work at that establishment.
That is somewhat vague and tenuous as an interpretation. The fears which have been expressed are ill-founded and are already safeguarded against by the provisions of subsection (2).

Mr. Tom Boardman: Could the hon. Gentleman clear up the illustration I gave, involving two identical factories one in London and one in Scotland? If the emoluments in London were £25 for men and £15 for women and those in Scotland were £20 for men and £12 for women, would they be regarded as common terms of employment?

Mr. Walker: I am now going through the same experience which 1 had in Committee of being unable to develop the Government's reply in a consistent and continuous fashion because hon. Members opposite seem to assume that I do not intend to deal with the points they raise. I am anxious to clear up any misunderstandings which exist. The differences between us are not substantial and arise from misunderstandings rather than anything of substance.
I shall try to deal with the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) as to what is meant by the phrase
 terms and conditions of employment ".
In reply to the charge that I leaned on the experience and decisions of the courts or tribunals, this surely is inevitable. We cannot take on the rôle of judges in this kind of situation because of the complexities and diversities which can arise in terms of the phrase
 terms and conditions of employment ".
Had this not been the case it would not have been necessary for this House to pass the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. It must be the task in the


ultimate of the courts and tribunals to determine this matter.
I repeat the point I made in Committee. By the establishment of common terms and conditions and the need for insistence on common terms and conditions, whatever they are, we will be comparing the totality. The point was made in Committee and has been repeated, by "the totality " do I mean comparison with overall levels of remuneration? If in a factory in Scotland £15 a week is paid for a certain category of work and in London £20 is paid within the same company or an associated company, do we say that the overall level of remuneration is a term of employment and, because the payments are obviously different, they are not common and are incapable of providing the comparison?
As I said in Committee, this must depend on the particular circumstances. Suppose the workers in the two establishments were on straight time rates. Clearly the time rate would be the term of employment. There would, therefore, be differences in those factories in terms of employment and there would not be common terms and conditions of employment. The workers may be on payment by results. It may be that the differences arise from the difference of effort on the part of the workers. There may be different piece-work bonus earnings even though the basic rates and all other things are equal. In that kind of situation there could be differences in the overall levels of remuneration but common terms and conditions of employment. This is a kind of hypothetical argument which in the last resort would have to be determined, in the event of dispute, by the tribunals.
There may be a situation where associated companies with establishments widely apart in different geographical areas could have common terms and conditions of employment and a woman in one part of the country could be seeking to establish a comparison with someone engaged on like work. She could use that as a basis for establishing equality of terms and conditions but that is unlikely.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Holland: In the event of the grade rate, basic rate or the basic minimum being exactly the same in two different regions and all other things being equal,

the terms and conditions would be the same and any other factor making up the total would be considered a difference in terms and conditions?

Mr. Walker: If the various rates laid down are identical and all other things are equal there would be the common ground which would provide the basis for comparison. Overall remuneration for similar hours of work tends to vary widely between different geographical areas. Differences arise from certain concrete factors and differences of remuneration arise from different terms and conditions of employment, but another factor would have to be satisfied. It is not just any establishment with which comparison can be drawn, but with rates for men employed by her employer or by any associated employer within the terms laid down in the Bill. There we have a dramatic narrowing down of the area and the further very substantial refinement provided by the phrase
 common terms and conditions of employment.
There is a hypothetical possibility, but it is a very unlikely one.
I hope that, without going through all the arguments they made in Committee, hon. Members will accept that their force is ill-founded and will not find it necessary to continue to press this Amendment.

Mr. Speed: The Under-Secretary has again advanced many of the arguments he used in Committee, but at the end of the day the fears originally expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) in Committee and which have been expressed tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), as the Under-Secretary has admitted, have a foundation. The hon. Gentleman has defended the status quo in the Bill, but he has not dealt with the Amendment.
As the hon. Gentleman admitted, there are undoubtedly possible certain circumstances which as the Bill is drafted might lead to extraordinary situations which could mitigate against a development area in Scotland or elsewhere. There is certainly a possibility of that. There is a probability. All these points would be taken care of by the Amendment if it were accepted. I believe that it would be watertight and would cover the hypothetical or any other situation in Scotland


or other parts of Britain. The Amendment is not in any way contrary to the spirit of the Clause nor of the Bill. It would tighten it up and make it more sensible and worth while.
Since the hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the Amendment, which I believe to be good, fair and sound, I hope that my hon. Friend will have serious thoughts about pressing it to a Division.

Mr. R. Carr: The Under-Secretary started his remarks by saying that he felt like saying, " I have been here before ". So do I, and I am sure so do my hon. Friends. I am sorry to have to tell him that his remarks have failed to convince us this evening, just as they failed in Committee. His advice and our understanding of the Bill are just as cloudy as they were when we finished our debates in Committee on this point some weeks ago.
This Amendment is very important. There is undoubtedly a very wide measure of support, thank goodness, throughout the country for the principle of equal pay. Equally, there is genuine concern about the overall economic cost of the operation, and if we get it wrong the possible effect of the introduction of equal pay in upsetting differentials between one job and another and between one region and another. The rapid, escalating, economic and industrial relations effects of disturbing differentials are well known.
If the Clause allowed the things to happen which my hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, suggested might happen, the effects would be serious. The inflationary effect would be serious not only for the firm and associated firms, and for the area in which they are situated, but for the whole country. The total cost to the economy of implementing equal pay would be probably many times larger than the provisional estimates put forward by the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, great damage would be done to the employment possibilities and potentials of development areas particularly remote ones. There would be great incentive to the leap-frogging claims which adversely affect industrial relations and inflation in our industrial economy.
If we imagine the women workers in my hon. Friend's hypothetical factory in

Scotland suddenly brought up to the level of men working in London, the men in Scotland would have to go up to that level and, before long, the men in London would put in a claim to establish their differential over the men in Scotland because of the extra cost of living in London. The industrial relations and economic effects of this would be serious and escalating.
We accept that the Government do not intend this effect to occur, and that they believe that the Bill as drafted will not allow it to occur, but the Under-Secretary has failed to convince us that the Clause as drafted will ensure the common intention of both sides of the House. To avoid the effect that we have predicated we must have either this Amendment or something like it. The Under-Secretary says that we must lean on the judgment of tribunals. Of course we must, but when we make law we must surely draft it so as to make our intention clear and reduce to the minimum the risk of the tribunals in this case and the courts in other cases interpreting the law contrary to our intentions.
If the Clause remains as it is, there is a substantial risk of tribunals interpreting it in a way contrary to the Government's declared intentions. That is also the view of experts in legal matters outside the House. We and the Government both want the same thing. There is no difference of principle or intention between us. The difference between us is whether the Clause as drafted achieves our common intention. We do not believe it does, and that is why we press the Amendment.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) that the Under-Secretary did not deal with the Amendment. If our intentions are the same, and if it is genuinely thought that the Amendment makes the intention clearer, why cannot the Under-Secretary accept it? His only case for rejecting it was that it was not necessary. The Under-Secretary mentioned the case of an employer moving all his women workers up the road, but that is covered completely by the last phrase in the Amendment, which refers to the rate
 which would be given to a man if one were to be engaged on such work at that establishment.


If a firm, to avoid the operation of the Bill, moved its women workers up the road to another factory, that phrase of the Amendment would prevent it from avoiding the intention of Parliament.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again. We would willingly give him leave to address the House for a second time. He should at least give us a reason why our Amendment is wrong and, if it is technically wrong, why something like it would not help to make more certain our common intention. We feel strongly that something more is needed and, if the Government cannot accept the Amendment or undertake to produce in another place an Amendment of similar intent, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I want to give the Under-Secretary a chance to explain to his right hon. Friend the irrefutable arguments which we have advanced while she has been away. I beg him to accept the Amendment, which is the most important remaining Amendment. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the Bill contained safeguards to prevent what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) said would happen. He also referred to his speeches in Committee.
I will read one paragraph which shows that he has strong doubts on this:

" If the process of collective bargaining, sought as a consequence of the introduction of equal pay, to readjust some differentials, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. But my right hon. Friend and I, if I may say so, would deprecate this being a consequence of the provisions of the Bill and something which would mitigate against its in troduction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 19th February, 1970; c. 46.]

I do not know what the last four words mean. The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not want to happen what my hon. Friend said could happen. He has admitted that it might happen. The hon. Gentleman did not give any good reason for refusing to accept our simple Amendment to put this matter right. As my right hon. Friend said, if he does not like our Amendment we would be prepared to accept any which he produced which would have the same effect. It is up to the Government to give serious thought to this matter.

I read through the proceedings in Committee as an impartial person and it seemed to me that there was a great muddle in the Government's thinking. I wish that they would accept the Amendment. Only by doing so or taking similar action will they make sense of this part of the Bill.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 233.

Division No. 103.]
AYES
[8.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cordle, John
Harrison, Col. 8ir Harwood (Eye)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfield, F. V.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Costain, A. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dance, James
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Davidson. James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hiley, Joseph


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, J. E. B.


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Holland, Philip


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hooson, Emlyn


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)
Hordern, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John:
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornby, Richard


Black, Sir Cyril
Emery, Peter
Hunt, John


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Body, Richard
Fortescue, Tim
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Foster, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Brewis, John
Fry, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brinton, Sir Tattoo
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kershaw, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kimball, Marcus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Tom


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kitson, Timothy


Bullus, Sir Eric
Clyn, Sir Richard
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Burden, F. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Lancaster, Col. C. C.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Goodhew, Victor
Lane, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gower, Raymond
Lawler, Wallace


Gary, Sir Robert
Grieve, Percy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chataway, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Clark, Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Longden, Gilbert


Clegg, Walter
Harrison, Brian (Mafdon)
Lubbock, Eric




McAdden, Sir Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


MacArthur, Ian
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Percival, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


McMaster, Stanley
Pounder, Rafton
Waddington, David


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Patrick


Maginnis, John E.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walters, Dennis


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Mawby, Ray
Ridsdale, Julian
Ward, Dame Irene


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Weatherill, Bernard


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Scott, Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Monro, Hector
Silvester, Frederick
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Montgomery, Fergus
Sinclair, Sir George
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


More, Jasper
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Worsley, Marcus


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wright, Esmond


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Speed, Keith
Wylie, N. R.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Younger, Hn. George


Murton, Oscar
Summers, Sir Spencer



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nott, John
Temple, John M.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Anthony Grant.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Edwards, Robert (Billston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Ellis, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Allen, Scholefield
English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tlpt'n)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kelley, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Fernyhough, E.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Finch, Harold
Latham, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)
Lawson, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Barnett, Joel
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth


Binns, John
Forrester, John
Luard, Evan


Bishop, E. S.
Fowler, Gerry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gardner, Tony
McCann, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Garrett, W. E.
MacColl, James


Booth, Albert
Golding, John
MacDermot, Niall


Boston, Terence
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McGuire, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Gregory, Arnold
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackie, John


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hannan, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marks, Kenneth


Concannon, J. D.
Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Hazell, Bert
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cronin, John
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Henig, Stanley
Millan, Bruce


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hobden, Dennis
Moonman, Eric


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hooley, Frank
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Horner, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)



Delargy, H. J.
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dell, Edmund
Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Albert


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hunter, Adam
Neal, Harold


Dickens, James
Hynd, John
Newens, Stan


Dobson, Ray
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Doig, Peter
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Norwood, Christopher


Driberg, Tom
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oakes, Gordon


Dunn, James A.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ogden, Eric


Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Durrwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian


Eadie, Afex
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Albert E.







Orbach, Maurice
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Orme, Stanley
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Tuck, Raphael


Oswald, Thomas
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Varley, Eric G.


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Palmer, Arthur
Rose Paul
Walden, Brian(All Saints)


Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Ron, Rt. Hn. William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Park, Trevor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wallace, George


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)



Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'e'tle-u-Tyne)
Wells, William (Watsall, N.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

White, Mrs. Eirene


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Witkins, W. A.


Pentland, Norman
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Sillars, J.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Silverman, Julius
Willson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Slater, Joseph
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Snow, Julian
Woof, Robert


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie



Probert, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Randall, Harry
Symonds, J. B.
Mr. Neil McBride and


Rankin, John
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Ernest G. Perry


Rees, Merlyn
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 16, leave out from ' differences ' to end of line 19.
In Committee paragraph (b) was universally criticised and, indeed, shot up with withering fire from all directions. I hope that those who criticised will now feel that not only have we responded in the appropriate fashion, but also that we have more than fulfilled our undertaking to take it back and look at it again.
We have come to the conclusion that the object we were seeking to attain is sufficiently secured by the words in subsection 4,
 the differences (if any) between the things she does and the things they do are not of practical importance in relation to terms and conditions of employment ".
The differences would be " of practical importance "—and, therefore, a woman would have no claim to equal treatment —if the men concerned were paid more than men doing the same work as the woman. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that paragraph (b) can be dropped, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.

Mr. Holland: I was surprised to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that paragraph (b) was universally criticised in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friends and I were merely concerned about certain words. We wanted to get rid of the double negative, but we were not party to the removal of the whole paragraph.
The proceedings in Committee on this point virtually go from column 93 to

about column 99. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) thought that this would deal with the kind of anomaly which would arise in the extremely complicated arrangement, about which we all talked, concerning factory A, factory B and factory C and the various inter-relationships which existed between men and women in various factories in different parts of the country.
I recall that the Minister explained that it was not the purpose of paragraph (b) to deal with that kind of situation but, taken with paragraph (a), to prevent a woman getting the best of both worlds by being able to change the comparison to suit her circumstances. For example, if a woman had already decided that the work she was doing was the same as that of a man in the same establishment she could then claim equality of pay. That was right and proper. But if she discovered that a man somewhere else was doing work which was broadly similar she might, without paragraph (b), be able to claim comparability with that man. Paragraph (b) would stop that happening because it would enable her to claim only the one comparison—namely, comparison with the man doing the same work. For that reason the Under-Secretary firmly rejected his hon. Friend's Amendment to delete this paragraph.
8.45 p.m.
I cannot understand why the Government have decided to delete this paragraph without taking any further action to deal with this kind of anomaly. If this paragraph is deleted, there ought to be something in its place. If the hon.


Gentleman does not like the wording of this paragraph, he ought to put something in its place to take care of the situation which he used as an illustration in Committee to show why he could not delete it. I do not understand how the kind of situation which the hon. Gentleman defended in Committee, and to which I have referred, can be safeguarded if this paragraph is deleted, and I hope that we shall get a much fuller explanation about this than we have had so far.
I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will think very carefully and seriously about whether to proceed with the Amendment. If he does, it will not only create a lot of difficulty, but will give rise to anxiety and concern amongst those in industry who will have to implement the Bill when it becomes an Act, without the few safeguards that there are in it now.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been taking notice of what my hon. Friend said in moving the Amendment. The Opposition are getting nearly everything for which they asked in Committee.

Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, and he may have got that impression from what his hon. Friend said. In moving the Amendment the hon. Gentleman said that there was fairly universal criticism of this paragraph. If the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) reads the report of the Committee procedings, he will find that the criticism came mainly from his hon. Friends. The only matter which my right hon. Friend and I criticised was the use of a double negative.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: We would be much happier if the double negative were removed. That was the basis of our case.

Mr. Holland: That is not being removed, but the paragraph is. I assure the hon. Member for Sedgefield that the Opposition are not getting everything for which they asked. They have not asked for this paragraph to be removed because, after the discussions in Committee, they recognised that it acted as a safeguard against anomalies arising. What we cannot now understand is why this safeguard

is being removed without anything to replace it.

Mrs. Renée Short: Unlike the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), I thank my hon. Friend for meeting me on this point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I moved this Amendment in Committee, and we had quite a debate on it. During that debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that—

Miss J. M. Quennell: May I ask the hon. Lady to give the column reference of her hon. Friend's speech?

Mrs. Short: I have not got there yet, but it is column 99. My hon. Friend said that he had had " to spend much time trying to grasp the meaning of the subsection ". That underlined what I said when I moved my Amendment, that the subsection was open to at least three different interpretations, and I set them out. I shall not bore the House by going through them again. Hon. Members can read the report if they are so minded. I said that the difficulty was that there were three possible interpretations, and I was not being facetious when I said that it was pure Peter Sellars and nobody could understand what it meant. My hon. Friend then said precisely the same thing —that he found great difficulty in grasping the meaning of this subsection. He explained that some of the thingsof which I was afraid were not involved and that all would be well.
But, at the end of the debate en this Amendment, after several hon. Members had also confessed that they were foxed by the subsection, my hon. Friend said:
 It seems the universal opinion of the Committee that this matter should be re-examined. I therefore express my willingness to take the provision back, look at it again and see if the words can be made more clearly to mean what I said earlier they did mean."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee H; 26th February, 1970, c. 99–106.]
My hon. Friend has obviously decided that he could not take the words back and turn them around or provide a new selection of words to produce what he hoped to produce. So he has come back with the Amendment which I moved in Committee, to delete the whole subsection. I am grateful to him for doing this.

Mr. Holland: This matter was raised also in column 99, when the Under-Secretary of State clearly stated the purpose of this subsection:
…to eliminate the situation in which a woman, by seeking to take advantage of the two fields of comparison open to her, would upset the male differentials.
I am sure that the hon. Lady would accept that he made its purpose clear.

Mrs. Short: Yes, he made it clear, but I and other hon. Members were not satisfied, so my hon. Friend gave this undertaking. He has carried it out, and I am grateful to him.

Mr. Ronald Bell: However enigmatically, the Amendment enlarges the effect of the Bill. I have opposed the Bill on the broad ground that it is bad in conception. I have taken the view throughout, which I repeat, that it is incapable of improvement by Amendment. I am sure that that will be shown to be the position. This Amendment amply illustrates that. It is an Amendment to make the Bill worse by enlarging its effect. That being so, I certainly cannot support it.

Mr. Speed: I agree with what was said earlier—we really must have some explanation from the Government of what will happen with the elimination of this paragraph. Undoubtedly, there was considerable criticism about the drafting of this Clause and the double negative and the Under-Secretary of State said that he would try to make it less muddled and difficult to understand.
But, when arguing about this subsection, the hon. Gentleman said:
 If a woman has established that she is on the same work as a man and has established the same terms and conditions of employment as that man, had it not been for subsection (4)(b) she would find herself subsequently in a position to make a further comparison with men elsewhere not on the same work but on like work. If she were able to say on the assumption that the man engaged on like work could be offered better pay than in the comparison she has already established with a man on the same work and she wants to draw the second comparison and establish the same rate of pay as men engaged on like work elsewhere and is able to succeed in that, the first man with whom she drew a comparison would be on lower pay than the other man."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 26th February, 1970; c. 98.]

It is a salutary experience to read what we said in Standing Committee, but I understand the Under-Secretary to be saying there—he elaborated it in columns 99 and 100—that there were substantial safeguards. We were arguing about the double negative. May we be assured that the safeguards still apply after the paragraph is withdrawn? We have had no such assurance tonight. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman was acting upon the most highly qualified legal advice.
Accepting that this part of the Bill is extremely difficult, and has, perhaps, not been as well drafted as it might have been, I do not think we have had sufficient assurance about safeguards which, apparently, were essential on 26th February but which no longer seem to be essential. We are entitled to a somewhat fuller explanation than we have so far had.

Miss Quennell: I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) in thanking the Under-Secretary for clarifying things by withdrawing part of the Clause. The hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying that there was considerable criticism of the paragraph in Committee. The use of the double negative lends itself to confusion. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee felt that if the double negative means the affirmative the Bill might have been drafted in more positive language throughout to make it the more comprehensible.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who is deeply versed in the law, does not think that the Clause is capable of improvement as drafted, so the Under-Secretary might explain which earlier wording he considers to be adequate, so that we may be quite satisfied that the aspect dealt with by paragraph (b), which it is now sought to exclude, is satisfactorily covered.
This is a difficult Clause. It occupies at least half of the Standing Committee OFFICIAL REPORT, and it took up the major part of the Committee's work. Clause 1 is the foundation of the Bill, and carries its whole purpose. We should, therefore, be satisfied of its proper drafting.

Mr. William Wilson: If it is my hon. Friend's intention to delete paragraph (b) there is no need to have paragraph (a). He should run that paragraph in with the general subsection, and not differentiate. There is no point in having (a) without (b).

Mr. Harold Walker: I have been astonished at the reaction of hon. Members opposite to a constructive and helpful response to what I believed to be a widely expressed distaste in Committee. I quite distinctly recall the Opposition spokesman in the Committee referring to the paragraph as gobbledegook, among other things. Criticism came from all quarters.
I had to tell the Committee that we could not accept an Opposition Amendment designed to delete what was described as a double negative, because deletion would lead, amongst other things, to ambiguity and to misinterpretation by the courts. After very carefully examining the position, as I thought in response to the feelings expressed in the Committee, and after obtaining the best legal advice available, I thought that we had come to the right decision, and one which would have been widely if not universally welcomed by hon. Members who took part in the Standing Committee discussions.
9.0 p.m.
I said tonight that we had come to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that the object which we sought to attain by having the paragraph in was sufficiently secured by the introductory words of subsection (4):
 A woman is to be regarded as employed on like work with men if, but only if, her work and theirs is of the same or a broadly similar nature, and the differences (if any) between the things she does and the things they do are not of practical importance …
Hon. Members have quoted what I said in Committee. I did not know until tonight that I had been so comprehensive, eloquent and lucid. It is flattering to me to have my words quoted by hon. Members opposite. However, I recall one unforgettable moment when the Chairman of the Committee had to confess that, because of the obscurity of this provision, he was not sure whether I was in or out of order. We were discussing the situa-

tion in which a hypothetical woman operative engaged on the same work as a man was possibly in a more advantageous position by having some other operative elsewhere in the establishment with whom she could make a comparison on a broadly similar work basis. Clearly, this ran the risk, if it came off, of upsetting male differentials.
We have come to the conclusion that the third person with whom she might seek to make a broadly similar comparison would, in every case we can envisage, be a person in circumstances in which the differences would be of practical importance. We are now satisfied that it would be best, in order to meet a universally felt view in Committee, to delete subsection (4)(b). I am satisfied that we have the necessary safeguard to protect industry against the situation which might arise.

Mr. R. Carr: The Under-Secretary of State always tries to be not only courteous, but helpful, and I assure him that we appreciate that. I am sorry if we seem ungrateful on this occasion, but he is under a misapprehension in thinking that we were anxious to remove this provision. It was one of his hon. Friends who tried to do that. I said in Committee:
 All that we are seeking to do is to remove a double negative from the paragraph."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 26th February, 1970; c. 930.]
When I used words like " gobbledegook ", which I may have done in the excitement of the moment, I was referring to the difficulty of understanding the Clause and the Government's explanations of it. I pointed out that I had been taught at school that it was always better to be positive rather than use a double negative.
However, finally we came to the conclusion that we understood the Clause and that we had been convinced of its necessity. It is extraordinary that the Under-Secretary should have made a relatively long speech in Committee defending the subsection and then tonight make a very short speech saying that it is not necessary at all.

Mr. Harold Walker: Did I not make a long speech defending " that has been "?

Mr. Carr: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman did not convince us that those words were necessary. He succeeded, after much pain, grief and trouble—I was glad I was not in his shoes—in persuading us that there was some purpose in subsection (4)(b). Having done that at great length, now in a short speech he tells us that it is not necessary and that he expresses this latest view after the most careful consideration with legal experts. He must have had that careful examination and consultation with legal experts before he took the first view. Which view of legal experts are we to take?
If I remember correctly, the hon. Gentleman was taking the view of legal experts almost continuously while we were considering this subsection. The whole time it was clear that the advice he was being given was substantiating the first advice he had been given, namely, that the subsection was necessary.
For the benefit of those who were not members of the Standing Committee I shall quote a few of the things the hon. Gentleman said in defence of the subsection; because, in judging what he is doing, we should recall what he said in Committee:
Paragraph (b) is crucial to an understanding of the words ' broadly similar '.
The words " broadly similar " are crucial to the Bill. They are the basis of the Bill. Anything that is crucial to the explanation, understanding and clarification of the basic principle of the Bill is of great importance and cannot be deleted like this.
To illustrate how crucial it was, the Minister gave the Committee some examples and at the conclusion of those two sorts of example said that the results of what would happen without this provision
 would be a nonsense and would upset the differentials…
It is no part of the purpose of this Bill to upset the differentials which exist between men and men as a product of the existing collective bargaining system. We all know

that anomalies exist, but it is not the function of this Bill to re-dress them …

Subsection (4)(b) qualifies what otherwise would be the case. This is intended to be a restriction on a possible interpretation of what the hon. Member has drawn attention to in line 11, to eliminate the situation in which a woman, by seeking to take advantage of the two fields of comparison open to her, would upset the male differentials…

The principal purpose of the subsection is to avoid the possibility of upsetting the differentials between men and men which are the product of the collective bargaining system, whatever the differences and illogicalities"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 26th February, 1970; c. 96–100.]

These were just a few highlights in a long speech explaining why we must accept the provision. Tonight we have had no real explanation. The hon. Gentleman has merely said that he has taken further legal advice and can now assure us that all these things will not happen without the provision. He does no convince us. I wish he did, because I am sure that he now believes what he is saying, but he gave us a great deal of evidence to support his previous belief, whereas he has given us none to support his new and quite different belief.

With that lack of evidence, I must reluctantly say to my hon. Friends that I feel that we shall have to divide the House on this Amendment. Although I realise that it is a different point in that it raises again the fear which we expressed on the previous Amendment that, contrary to the declared and accepted intention of the Government, the Bill as drafted, and now as amended, may lead to escalations and the upsetting of differentials which will not only have a far more inflationary effect in the total wage bill of the economy than the Government want or forecast, but, when it comes to upsetting differentials, could be a most undesirable cause of industrial strife.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 143.

Division No. 104.]
AYES
[9.11 p.m.


Albu, Austen
 Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
 Binns, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bishop, E. S.


Alldritt, Walter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blackburn, F.


Allen, Scholefield
Barness, Michaet
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Barnett, Joel
Booth, Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Bence, Cyrill
Bossom, Sir Clive


Ashley, Jack
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Boston, Terence


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Bidwell, Sydney
Bradley, Tom




Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian


Brooks, Edwin
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Oram, Albert E.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob(N c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Park, Trevor


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Judd, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Delargy, H. J.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Edmund
Latham, Arthur
Rankin, John


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dickens, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Dobson, Ray
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lubbock, Eric
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


English, Michael
McCann, John
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Faulds, Andrew
MacColl, James
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Sillars, J.


Finch, Harold
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Slater, Joseph


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Cregor (Rutherglen)
Snow, Julian


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackintosh, John P.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Taverne, Dick


Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fowler, Gerry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tuck, Raphael


Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. w.


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Varley, Eric G.


Golding, John
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Gregory, Arnold
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamling, William
Moonman, Eric
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hannan, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilkins, W. A.


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Juudith
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hazell, Bert
Moyle, Roland
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Neal, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stan
Woof, Robert


Henig, Stanley
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip



Hobden, Dennis
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Neil McBride and


Hooson, Emlyn Horner, John
Ogden, Eric
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biggs-Davison, John
Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Black, S r Cyril
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chataway, Christopher


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Body, Richard
Chichester-Clark, R.


Atkins Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clark, Henry


Awdry Daniel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clegg, Walter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Cordle John


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Corfield, F. V.


Bennett Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Costain, A. p.


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)







Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dance, James
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Emery, Peter
King, Tom
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Silvester, Frederick


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Speed, Keith


Foster, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fry, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Summers, Sir Spencer


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mac Arthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Glover, Sir Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForcst)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Cower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walters, Dennis


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper
Weatherhill, Bernard


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morgan, Goraint (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar
Worsley, Marcus


Hill, J. E. B.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wright, Esmond


Holland, Philip
Nott, John
Wylie, N. R.


Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hn. George


Hornby, Richard
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Hector Monro.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
(5) The work done by women shall be evaluated by the same methods as are used for men and equal pay shall be given for those components of the work which are shown to he equal.

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that with this Amendment we should take the following Amendments: No. 5, in line 21, leave out ' work ' and insert ' job '.

No. 6, in line 22, leave out ' work ' and insert job '.

No. 7, in line 23, leave out ' the ' and insert ' a '.

No. 8, in line 23, leave out ' in effort, skill, decision and other factors ' and insert:
' under various headings (for instance effort, skill, decision)'.

No. 9, in line 23, leave out 'in effort, skill, decision and other factors '.

No. 10, in line 28, leave out ' on the same factor for men and women ' and insert:
for men and women on the same demand under any heading '.

Mr. Speed: I will not say much about the right hon. Lady's Amendments, which we are considering with my Amendment. They go some considerable way to meeting points which were raised in Committee, but there remains a major objection, which is why I have moved this Amendment: we believe that the Bill still misunderstands the method and practice of job evaluation. I know that the subsection which we propose to delete derives from subsection 1(b) and amplifies the provisions of that paragraph. Nevertheless, the subsection seems to misunderstand the working of job evaluation.
In fact, job evaluation is important, as was said on both sides of the Committee. We had considerable support from hon. Members opposite when moving a similar Amendment in Committee. Job evaluation is not an exact science. It is still based on individual opinions and is still changing. It is still a matter of subjective judgement. But certain principles are agreed, and they are not fully understood by the present wording of the Bill.
Report No. 83 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes was quoted in part on the subject in Committee. I


should like to quote one or two paragraphs which are relevant. Paragraph 7, on page 3 reads:
 Job evaluation is impersonal in the sense that it is concerned solely with jobs, not with the particular quality, competence or effort of the individuals who perform them.
I agree completely with that. It seems to me that that is where the wording of the Bill is faulty. It continues:
 In intention, at least, it is the job that is evaluated, not the job's current occupant.
I say " Hear, hear " to that. It adds:
Job evaluation is concerned, therefore, with the determination of basic wage-rate or salary structures. Where it is desired to reward such elements as individual performance or long service, other components must be added to the job evaluated base to make up the total pay structure.
I am sure that that is fundamentally right, and it is completely opposed to the subsection which we are seeking to delete.
I turn to paragraph 142, on page 41, although I will not quote the whole of the paragraph. Part of the paragraph reads:
 Apart from the advantage which job evaluation offers to management by establishing an accepted pay structure, thus limiting discontent and ' leapfrogging ' claims by different sections of the working force, it also forces on management the same disciplined approach to personnel problems as is required in other spheres.
There are definitions of " job evaluation " listed on page 48 of the Report. The International Labour Office, in 1960, said:
 Job evaluation rates the job, not the man.
The United States Department of Labour, Bureau of Labour Statistics, Washington, 1950, says that job evaluation
 is always applied to jobs rather than to qualities of individuals in the jobs.
It is our criticism of the subsection that it does not do those things, but applies to the individual rather than to jobs. It talks of the demands on the individual rather looking at what the job is about.
If we are to make sense of the Bill, and the Bill is to be widely accepted, as we all hope it will be, it is important, when we are dealing with comparatively new and sophisticated techniques, that the wording of the Bill should not be directly

contrary to what is generally understood by industry, trade unions and other people who have made it their business to discuss job evaluation. A job can be evaluated and described in a system by a number of different means and methods.
The demands on an individual can vary with his physical and mental capacity, his aptitudes, and even as to whether he had a good breakfast or had a row with his spouse before leaving for work. A worker on a specific job can at different times in the same day be stretched at the same job and find that he has not the capability to do the job properly, while at other times he finds that he is coasting along and the job is well within his capacity. All these things are ignored or misunderstood by the wording of the subsection.
Our Amendment seeks to define job evaluation as understood by industry, by the unions, by the I.L.O. and by the N.B.P.I. It is in that spirit I put forward the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: These Amendments reflect long discussion in Committee on what I referred to one at one stage as the quagmire or minefield of job evaluation. The subsequent discussion proved my description to be justified.
Amendment No. 4 reflects one of the debates we had in Committee and I am surprised that the Opposition still seem to think that the form of words they have chosen has a kind of sanctity endowed by the N.B.P.I. That board used these words in a recommendation in a report on the Armed Forces, but there is a difference between the words used in such a recommendation and words to be embodied in a Statute.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) drew attention to the link which exists between subsection (5) and subsection (1). Subsection (1)(b) says that men and women should get equal treatment when they are employed on work that has been rated as equivalent. Subsection (5) defines in careful detail the circumstances in which work is to be regarded as " rated as equivalent". The redraft proposed in the Amendment does not, on the face of it, relate back to subsection (1)(b). It is not clear whether the subsection as amended is intended to be restricted to situations where a proper job


evaluation exercise has been carried out. A great deal depends on the meaning to be given to the word " evaluated ". Quite rightly, the hon. Member has drawn attention to the precise way in which this is sought to be used these days compared with the loose, jargon-like way in which it was used in the past.
I think that the Committee agreed with me when I said that there is a certain amount of scientific misuse of the word and that to describe it as a science, as some people do, is to mislead. At best, it is a quasi-science.

Mr. Holland: It is because we certainly go along with much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said that we have prepared the Amendment, which simply lays down that the work done by a woman shall be evaluated by the same methods as are used for men. Whatever form of job evaluation is used—and there are different forms and variations—the same method should be used in evaluating the work of women.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker: if the hon. Gentleman will wait until the end of my speech, he will see that we are very much aware of the argument, and it is our argument that the subsection meets that point. We are now repeating one of the arguments in Committee. On the ordinary meaning of words, the amended subsection would apply to any kind of evaluation, that is, one not necessarily based on a job evaluation exercise but possibly and probably one that was merely the result of negotiation or of an employer's general judgment, or, as I described in Committee, possibly a carve-up between male-dominated trade unions and an employer. It is meaningless to say that where men's work is evaluated by negotiation or an employer's general judgment women's work should be evaluated " by the same methods ". In these sets of circumstances the situation is taken care of by Clause 3.
The second half of the proposed sub-section says:
… equal pay shall be given for those components of the work which are shown to be equal.
It is our view that this point is already covered by subsection (1)(b), which says that men and women must get equal

treatment where their work has been rated as equivalent and where
 the terms and conditions of both are determined by the rating of their work ".
For these reasons, the proposed new subsection must be unacceptable to the Government.
With this Amendment we are discussing Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 tabled by my right hon. Friend. We had a lengthy debate on the subsection in Committee, when various criticisms were made, and our Amendments are in response to the views expressed in Committee. The N.B.P.I. Report emphasising the importance of rating the job and not the worker was the subject of some criticism of the Clause. We have sought to respond positively and I hope in a manner that will be acceptable to the Opposition and my hon. Friends who made the same points in Committee.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together make it clear that it is the job that is being evaluated. Amendment No. 8 makes it clear that " effort, skill, decision ", words which were the subject of criticism in Committee, are only examples of the sort of factor which should be used in a typical evaluation scheme, and that it is not necessary for all these headings or factors to be included in a job evaluation scheme for that scheme to be covered by subsection (5).
Amendment No. 10 makes it clear, as the present wording does not, that a man's job and a woman's job must be given the same value under any particular, heading of a job evaluation system only when the jobs make the same demand on a worker under that heading.
We consider that, taken together, the Amendments are an improvement on the subsection. I should express our gratitude to the Committee members on both sides who drew our attention to these points and have strengthened the subsection as a result.
I hope that my explanation of the Government Amendments will also be treated as a reply to the point made in Opposition Amendment No. 9. We have sought to meet the point raised in Committee and largely embodied in the Amendment.

Mr. Christopher Ward: The Minister referred to the quagmire through


which he was wading in connection with these provisions. There is one relatively straightforward route through it and it starts off in Clause 1(b), where we are talking about equivalent work and trying to decide, evaluate, or judge in some way what that is. What I do not understand is why, when we come to (5), instead of evaluating the work or the job we alter the concept by introducing an entirely subjective element and try to evaluate the demand which it makes upon the worker, which may be a different thing from time to time.
It may be, and this is something which I do not think my hon. Friend dared to mention on the Bill, that the demand upon the worker may vary according to whether the worker is a man or a woman. If the job is shovelling coal, clearly this will make a very much greater demand on a woman than it might on a man. To say that we must evaluate or judge in some way the demand made on the worker when the worker must either be a man or a woman for the purpose of this exercise, seems to be a nonsense, departing from the fairly clear statement in 1(b).
Then the Government say that they will delete " the " and insert " a ", so that they will assess the demand made on a worker. That does not take us very far at all. Before we knew that we were talking about either a man or a woman. Now we have to determine what the demand might be on a worker without knowing whether it is to be a man or a woman. On what sort of worker will the Minister assess the demand? Will there be a British Standard worker on which we can assess the demand, which will be a mixture in some proportion between man and woman, having an appropriate proportion of the capabilities of both?
Unless the Minister has a concept of this sort I do not see how we can assess the demand which the job will make on a worker. It is this concept of the demand on a worker instead of the work for the job which makes this subsection so difficult and that is why I support the Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I had criticisms to make about this in Committee and the Government Amendments help materially to eliminate some of my

fears. Looking at the Opposition Amendment, I would have thought that the first line would be acceptable—perhaps not necessary, but acceptable. But when the Opposition go on to say that certain components of the work should be accepted for equal pay it may be that that would be contravening the whole principle of the Bill.
There are many skilled rates which do not mean that the skilled man is working to the full extent of his capacity during the whole time that he is doing the job. One of the qualities of management is to get the greatest amount of skilled work out of a man. It would be a mistake to believe that at all times he would be working to 100 per cent. of his capacity on skilled work.
If we follow the suggestion literally in the second line of the Opposition Amendment it seems that we would get into an awful jam. We would be giving the equivalent of the skilled rate for that part of the job applicable to his skill, but refusing to do so for the parts which were not applicable. At the end of the day there would be a huge conglomeration of differentials which could not be applied. Hon. Members opposite have tried to meet a difficult situation, but their Amendment would not achieve what obviously they are trying to achieve.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I appreciate that there is some basis in the case put forward by the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), but the phrase " broadly similar work ", which is a key phrase of the Bill, would take account of that position. Where there was a majority of components this trouble would not arise. We put forward our Amendment because it is better than the longer and more complicated phraseology in the Bill. We are sorry that the Government cannot accept it, or something like it.
We welcome the approach of the Under-Secretary, who has gone some way to meet the points made in Committee on this difficult part of the Bill. Although we are sorry that he cannot accept our Amendment, which would interpret the Bill more successfully, with the Amendments the Government have put forward subsection (5) will be much more intelligible to the ordinary person. That will be done by replacing the word


" work " by the word " job ". I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has even now got it entirely right by using the various headings of " effort, skill, decision ". The previous wording was rather arbitrary and it would have been better to leave the subsection out altogether, but the hon. Gentleman has gone some way to meet us.
In Committee we were very critical of the drafting of this Bill, particularly as we are trying to pioneer new ground. We considered that the drafting should be as simple and clear as possible. This subsection is far from simple or clear. I have held the view that Bills are sometimes drafted by lawyers for interpretation by lawyers. This part of the Bill will have to be interpreted by laymen on both sides of industry—by trade unions and employees and by employers. It is important that they should understand what is meant. I have had the impression that the harder the Government have tried to define the question of job evaluation and comparability of work the further they have got into the quagmire. The harder one tries to define the more obscure the meaning sometimes becomes. Therefore, any amendment of this part of the Bill is welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) was right to say that job evaluation is an impersonal exercise. It is important that it should be so if it is to be effective. This subsection as drafted, and even when it is amended, will deal with the individual. I do not wish to press our Amendment to a Division because we agree that there are complications, but the phrase " the same methods " would tie up with subsection (1)(b).
We thank the hon. Gentleman for paying attention to what was said in Committee. This proves that Committees can be valuable if Governments pay attention to points made by hon. Members. By putting forward these changes the Under-Secretary has helped to make the Bill more effective.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Whilst I welcome the Amendments which the Government have made, I regret that they have not given more thought to this Amendment, the object of which is to introduce simplicity; otherwise, the Bill will be a lawyers' paradise. It would be tragic.

when both sides of the House are united, if the Bill failed because we are unable to express our objectives clearly and concisely. The Clause, even as amended. is open to misconstruction and misinterpretation. The Amendment sets out quite simply what we want, which is that the same yardstick shall be applied to the evaluation of women's work as to men's work, which is what the Bill is about.

Mr. Speed: Half a loaf is indubitably more nourishing than no bread.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No 5, in page 2, line 21, leave out ' work ' and insert ' job '.

No. 6, in line 22, leave out ' work ' and insert job '.

No. 7, in line 23, leave out ' the ' and insert a '.

No. 8, in line 23, leave out ' in effort, skill, decision and other factors ' and insert under various headings (for instance effort, skill, decision) '.

No. 10, in line 28 leave out ' on the same factor for men and women ' and insert:
' for men and women on the same demand under any heading '.—[Mrs. Castle.]

Mrs. Renée Short: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 28, at end insert:
'At any place of work where there is a recognised trade union or unions, the job shall be jointly evaluated by the employer and the appropriate recognised trade union or unions '.
In Committee, I moved an Amendment which aimed at bringing the trade unions into evaluation exercises carried out at any work place, to make sure that the trade unions were consulted and were carried along at every stage of the evaluation exercise. My hon. Friend, in reply, said that technically the Amendment was not progressive, but would have a restrictive result by precluding the carrying out of evaluation exercises at places of work which had no trade union organisation.
This Amendment make it clear that at places of work where there are recognised registered trade unions or a trade union, those unions or that union shall be consulted where job evaluation exercises are


conducted to determine equal pay for work of broadly similar value.
A basic requirement is that we should carry the trade unions with us. For employers to carry out job evaluation exercises without consulting the trade unions is a recipe for disaster. At the end of the day, if the unions are not satisfied—as they may well not be if they are not consulted—the exercise may be in vain, and the result may not be accepted by the trade unions.
As we have heard, more and more job evaluation is needed. Although it is unscientific, it is often the only means of assessing the value of a job, or part of a job, in determining the pay of the workers who carry it out.
We have had a good deal of strong and firm advice about the way in which the trade unions should be consulted in this kind of exercise. We had it in the report of the Prices and Incomes Board, which said clearly that they ought to be consulted. A classic example of the way in which this exercise should be carried out occurred when the coal industry was nationalised. An enormous and comprehensive job evaluation exercise was carried out throughout the whole industry in consultation with the unions concerned, who were brought in from the very beginning. The job was done with the minimum of friction and difficulty simply because the unions had been brought in.
Recently, the T.U.C. Women's Conference brought out a report on equal pay. Obviously, these are the women trade unionists most concerned with the Bill. The report says that the Bill should be amended along the lines I suggest, in order to make provision for consultation with the trade unions. We thus have firm evidence of a desire by the trade unionists most concerned for an Amendment to this effect.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that an evaluation exercise could be the employer's own crude judgment. This is what the Amendment seeks to guard against. In a firm where there is strong trade union organisation, there will not be this difficulty because the unions will ensure that they are consulted and are brought in at every stage of the exercise. But one is also concerned with those firms where

there is weak trade union organisation, where the unions are not in a position to enjoy the same kind of consultation with the employers as in a firm where there is strong trade union organisation. Spurious schemes could well be put forward by such employers which were completely unacceptable to the trade unions. In Committee, my hon. Friend was clearly aware of this possibility.
One of the advantages of the Amendment is that it would encourage trade unions to organise themselves and set up the kind of negotiating machinery we want to see in factories and other work places. It would give them encouragement and great kudos if they were able to organise and meet the employers on equal terms. But, to do this, they have to recruit membership within such places so that they are able to meet the employers to discuss these very important problems. It is in the interests of the working people within different places of work and in the interests of the trade unions concerned. There is great and authoritative support for the Amendment.
My hon. Friend was obviously won over to this view in Committee. He made it clear that he supported the principle when he said:
I agree with the view, not confined to one side of the Committee"—
this was so, since many hon. Members on both sides spoke on the similar Amendment then before the Committee—
that before—indeed, this should apply to schemes after they have been established—the introduction of job evaluation schemes there should be the fullest consultation with trade union representatives and the maximum possible agreement reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee H. 26th February, 1970: c. 126.]
I assume from what the Minister said that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment. It is desired by and in the interests of the trade unions. Indeed, it is in the employers' interests to carry the trade unions with them from the beginning of the exercise. We know that if the trade unions are consulted that is half the battle. A great deal of our industrial difficulties arise because there is no consultation with the trade unions. So my right hon. Friend is taking out a very good insurance policy for the minimum of friction if she accepts the Amendment—[Interruption.] " In Place


of Strife " is, indeed, a very good insurance policy.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment and will bask in the pleasure that this will bring not only to trade union Members in this House, but also to all women trade unionists outside and to those trade unions which have already gone on record in support of the Bill.

Mr. Holland: As a practitioner in personnel management, who has carried out job evaluation schemes in three firms for both staff and employers, I am bewildered by the wording of the Amendment. I fail to understand how the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) can link it with what the Under-Secretary said in Committee at column 126. While I agree with what the Under-Secretary said, I cannot find that this is in line with what is proposed in the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman said that there should be the fullest consultation. Before starting any job evaluation scheme one should consult and make certain that not only the trade union representatives and shop stewards, but also the employees know what is proposed.

Mr. John Ellis: Not always.

Mr. Holland: I am saying that that is what should be done. One must make sure of this to have a successful exercise. Without willing co-operation by the people doing the jobs being evaluated a successful exercise is not possible. There must be willing co-operation to get a successful exercise—

Mrs. Renée Short: Mrs. Renée Short rose—

Mr. Holland: If the hon. Lady will be patient, I will explain why this is not what the Amendment would achieve. It is only with the willing co-operation of and understanding by the employees of what is being done that one can hope to achieve a reasonable result and a reasonable basis for deciding comparability of work and job.
This is not an exact science. It is still in the process of development. It has progressed from what it was 10 years ago, but it is still not an exact science. Therefore, it needs all the help that it can get to achieve a successful outcome.
I agree that there must be consultation. This is inherent in doing a good and efficient job. But I do not see how two bodies can share the job other than the way in which the employee shares it with management. The employee being assessed fills in a form, the departmental head or supervisor also fills in a form, and the two are considered together and evaluated by a small committee of people with wide experience in that industry or undertaking.
This is a joint effort, but it is not a matter of management and unions vying with each other, or working together in doing it.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Ellis: The hon. Gentleman is trying to teach his grandmother how to suck eggs.

Mr. Holland: Not quite. There must be consultation before the commencement of what is to be done, but that is different from what the Amendment says. It says that the job shall be jointly evaluated by the employer and the trade unions.

Mr. Ellis: Would the hon. Gentleman go as far as saying that there must be, not just explanation, but agreement?

Mr. Holland: I said at the beginning of my speech that ther must be willing co-operation, and one does not get that if there is not agreement with employees, not just employee's representatives, because it is the employees who fill in the forms. They must know what it is all about if they are to co-operate, and that is where I cavil at the Amendment.
I agreed with a lot of what the hon. Lady said when she talked about consultation, but I cannot agree that this job can be done jointly by bodies with differing interests.

Mrs. Renée Short: It seems that there is nothing between us. The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with most


of what I said about consultation, and what follows from the initial consultation between employers and trade unions on a job evaluation exercise. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will join me in the Lobby this evening if it is necesary to divide?

Mr. Holland: In industrial relations, and in politics, we are supposed to be able to communicate ideas and thoughts. It appears that I have failed utterly tonight to communicate my ideas to the hon. Lady. I agree with what she said about consultation, agreement, and cooperation before the exercise is undertaken, but I do not understand how this can be organised and directed by two different bodies. There has to be a central direction once it is in operation.
That is why I cannot accept the wording of Amendment, which says that the job shall be jointly evaluated. I find this difficult to follow, and impossible to support, because I do not understand what it is getting at. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite understand what I am getting at, even if the hon. Lady does not.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the whole exercise should be carried out by managerial representatives, but that it should be agreed to by employees and their representatives, the trade unions?

Mr. Holland: Nearly, but not quite, because the evaluation exercise is carried out by the employee, the supervisor, the departmental head, and people who are concerned with the matter. It is not just the management, as the hon. Gentleman put it.
What I am saying is that before any evaluation of comparability between jobs is started there should be the fullest consultation with employees, and that if there are trade union representatives they, too, should be brought into the discussion. There should be complete understanding of what is being done, and how. Once that is achieved, one can rely on full and willing co-operation in evaluating and making comparisons between one type of work and another.

Mr. Roy Hughes: What my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is saying

is that she wants it to be a joint exercise right from the start.

Mr. Holland: Yes, and it is when one gets beyond the start of the actual mechanics of the thing that I do not understand how it can be a joint exercise. This is where I differ from the hon. Lady although I go with her right up to that point. That is why I sincerely regret that I cannot follow her into the Lobby. It is on that ground and that ground alone. However, on the concentration, of course I agree with her.

Mr. Albert Booth: The subject of the Amendment will be crucial to the majority of the women who can benefit from the Bill. A minority will benefit from the wage-fixing aspect and a minority from the like work provision, but a majority will be able to benefit from the job evaluation provision, providing that it is done properly and democratically. The danger of not having women represented by union representatives at the point of job evaluation is that different criteria can be used in evaluating the jobs done by women and those done by men.
Job evaluation schemes are already sufficiently sophisticated to be designed to produce predetermined results within fairly narrow limits. Unless the guidelines of job evaluation are agreed in advance between the employers and union representatives of the women employed in the works, there is no adequate protection to ensure that this part of the Bill will operate correctly.

Mr. Holland: Would the hon. Gentleman define guidelines? Is he talking about the factors used in a job evaluation scheme? These are usually formally set out in general use, and many different firms use the same factors. Does he mean the weighting given to each factor? What other criteria has he in mind when talking about guidelines? How far does he go?

Mr. Booth: I used the term " guidelines " as a shorthand to cover factors and weighting. Both have to be covered in an agreement on guidelines. The only effective safeguard is trade union representation at this point. It can be argued that Clause 1(5) gives some statutory guidance about the acceptable form of


job evaluation, but in practice this could not possibly safeguard a woman.
To try to use this, a woman would have to say to a tribunal, " I want equal pay on the basis of job evaluation, but the job evaluation scheme in my firm does not correspond with Section 5(1)", and then argue that case. Not one woman in a thousand in industry would seek that course to obtain equal pay. What a woman in industry will do is look to her union to safeguard her conditions when jobs are being evaluated. So it is fundamental to have trade union representation at the point of job evaluation.
I would not want us to be bogged down on the words of the Amendment. Enough hon. Members with knowledge of industry, at least on this side, know how this thing can work in practice and what we mean when we say that there should be agreement between employers and unions on guidelines before progress is made on job evaluation.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to overcome this serious difficulty by agreeing to accept the words which the T.U.C. has included in the report which will be put before the T.U.C. Wowen's Conference which takes place tomorrow and on Friday at Weymouth. These words are simple and straightforward and they come from page 19, paragraph 54 of this report:
 The General Council consider that the best safeguard would be to amend the Clause in order to ensure that when job evaluation exercises are undertaken, there must—at all stages —be agreement by the trade unions concerned and they have suggested that Clause 1(5) should be appropriately amended.
I am sure that the House will understand what is meant by that simple phraseology.
If the right hon. Gentleman will accept that to be the purpose of the Amendment we can all go away happy this evening. If not, many of us will be forced to support the Amendment in a Division.

Mr. John Hall: I intervene briefly because a firm with which I am concerned has had job evaluation going on for about 10 years which is accepted as fair by those whom it affects.
There is a measure of agreement on both sides of the House on this matter. The issue is really a question of the wording of the Amendment. It might meet the case for all concerned if the latter part of the Amendment were to

read, " and the job shall be evaluated after full consultation with the appropriate recognised trade union or unions ".
What we all want is full consultation with the trade unions—

Mr. Ellis: We are on the right track; we are making progress. But it is not just a question of explanation. What we want is that one step forward to agreement. If we can have that, it is fine.

Mr. Hall: I would not dissent, because without agreement with the employers and the recognised trade union representatives we get nowhere. Employers require the guidance and help of the trade union representatives, who can explain exactly what is happening, and why it is happening, and can help employers with their problems. 1 am sure that we ail accept the spirit of the Amendment, but some of us on both sides will Lind great difficulty in supporting it as it is at present worded.

Mr. Orme: The Amendment and its inference go to the kernel of the problem. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) spoke of the mutuality within industry. When the engineering agreement was approved about 15 months ago, this question of mutuality was at the centre of much of the dispute between the engineering unions and the engineering employers. Mutuality gives employees the right to negotiation at all stages whatever may be the issue within the factory.
When we move on from male employees to female employees, mutuality becomes more essential than ever. My right hon. Friend, who is so keen on women asserting their rights, and who recognises the need for women to be in trade unions, must also recognise that if this provision is not written into the Bill women will still not have pressure put on them to appreciate that their interests lie within the trade unions, and negotiations, and particularly job evaluation, within many factories will take place without their views being consulted.
" Job evaluation " is an easy phrase, but those of us who have worked in industry for some years know exactly what it means. As soon as it takes place one can either have friction, mistrust and industrial disputes, or one can have negotiations with the employers which are meaningful, and which both


employers and trade unions accept. Friction can be caused by job evaluation.
10.15 p.m.
This is an absolutely central issue. My right hon. Friend has been concerned about worker participation in industry and that workers should play an important part in industry. That can happen only if women in industry have the opportunity of full consultation. I hope that she will accept what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has said. There appears to be a great deal of agreement in the House in this issue. The hon. Member for Carlton considerably narrowed the differences on it.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises that there is a wide measure of agreement in the House and that the question of consultation is at the centre of it. I hope that we can write into the Bill, if not the words which my hon. Friend suggests in his Amendment, then something like the T.U.C.'s suggestion. The T.U.C. suggests that provision about consultation should be written into the Bill to make it apparent that it is in the interests of employers and employees that the trade unions should be consulted.
This is a matter of great principle. The T.U.C. has made many suggestions about the Bill to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She has not been able to meet many of them. I support the general principle in the Bill. I recognise my right hon. Friend's difficulties, but I urge her to meet the point which has been raised tonight.

Sir D. Glover: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said. There is a great deal to be said for the Amendment. I would not argue about the form of words. What strikes me, as a non-member of the Committee, is that there is all too little about trade union participation in the Bill. I have tabled an Amendment about the rôle and activities of the trade unions. I visualise that the only vehicle which would be able to deal with job evaluation and with questions of equal pay on an equitable basis with the employers is the trade union. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Too many impromptu debates are taking place.

Sir D. Glover: I do not think any hon. Member wishes to be adamant about the wording of the Amendment. No one thinks that it is sacrosanct. It is admitted that there may be weaknesses in its wording. However, we should like to hear from the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State that some provision to deal with the point will be written into the Bill, perhaps in another place. If it is not, the Bill will be short of the practical machinery necessary to solve many of the problems which will inevitably arise.
I hope that the right hon. Lady realises that there is a good deal of agreement on both sides of the House about this problem. Perhaps she would view the Amendment with sympathy.

Mr. John Lee: There is a great deal of agreement on this matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not feel inhibited from taking a favourable view of the situation merely because of certain textual criticisms which may be made of the Amendment. Earlier, there was criticism of the wording of Amendments and it was said that the more closely we tried to define these matters the more difficult they became. That is not the right approach. There is not a clear distinction between consultation and integrating the trade unions in the process of evaluation.
The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and his hon. Friends have taken a reasonable attitude, but I believe that they draw an artificial distinction. I have worked as a member of a grading team. It is important that all those involved in the exercise should be incorporated from the start.

Mr. Holland: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to imply that I have a purely textual objection to the Amendment. I have a real and solid objection to something which I believe is impracticable. Our agreement was with many of the right hon. Lady's statements about consultation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Report. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment. Any intervention should be brief.

Mr. Lee: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. Having gone ac far as


he has and shown considerable sympathy with the purport of the Amendment, I am surprised that he is unable to go the whole way with it.
I have taken part in grading exercises. Such an exercise is rarely done by one or two people. Many people are involved. There has to be a great to-ing and fro-ing with those whose jobs are being evaluated. If an Amendment such as this is not accepted, even where there has been sympathetic and conscientious consultation with those whose jobs are under consideration a decision may be made which turns out to be unpopular and all the consultation which has taken place will not sugar the pill, because the decision will he made by one side. As long as this is being treated as exclusively a managerial decision, there is the likelihood of friction arising.
Although job evaluation is not a precise and scientific exercise, a considerable body of knowledge has been built up over the last 15 years. The criteria are not known only to management. The trade unions and their research organisations can avail themselves of the data. There is no reason why they should not participate in the process of evaluation.
I know that my right hon. Friend is concerned to secure good labour relations. She has had some traumatic experiences during the last year. If she accepts an Amendment such as this, she will not only endear herself to hon. Members below the Gangway but will make life easier for herself in her relations with the trade unions.

Mr. Ellis: I am convinced that there is nothing dividing me from the hon. Members for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). Hon. Members feel that the words
 the job shall be jointly evaluated by the employer and the appropriate recognised trade union 
will result in a mish-mash of a trade unionist and a management representative, neither of whom knows anything about the technical aspect of the job, but who will go round the works making a meal of it. That is not what we on this side of the House want to see. Indeed, there is general agreement in the House about what we want to achieve—a fact of which I am sure my right hon. Friend is sensible.
We feel that this issue is crucial. We all know of the sophisticated techniques of job evaluation, but it is unthinkable that a group of men about to undertake job evaluation should charge into a factory and begin taking measurements without first telling the trade unions about it. Were they not to tell the trade unions it would be a recipe for industrial disaster. In practice, the trade unions are informed and there is discussion and explanation in respect of the criteria, and there is agreement. Both hon. Gentlemen opposite agreed with me about that.
There may be some argument about the drafting of the Clause, but it is clear in principle that we want to ensure consultation. We want to see that where trade unions are established in a factory, the men undertaking job evaluation do not charge into the factory unannounced, but that first, there are explanations and agreements. There will be agreement about what is to happen and about the criteria. They will then move on to the factory floor. Often they are technical men doing a technical job. But they are not employers' men and they are not trade union men. There is usually agreement on both sides of the industry about the jobs which they are to evaluate.
I believe, from the murmurs of approval which I hear, that I have carried the House with me so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) hit the nail on the head when he said that what we are seeking to state is that when job evaluation exercises are undertaken, there must be trade union agreement at all stages. That is crucial.
I believe that we are all agreed about this matter. It was a mistake for a suggestion of a Division to be made in this atmosphere of sweet reasonableness and light. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not deal with the Amendment on technical grounds. I hope that she will say that she understands the argument and will see that the necessary Amendment is made in another place. If she says that, presumably hon. Members opposite will be happy and I shall be happy, and we shall have achieved what we do not often achieve—sweet reasonableness and light.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I want to make only four short points. It is obvious that the spirit of the Amendment is generally acceptable, although I have reservations whether it ought to be written in the Bill, certainly in the words on the Notice Paper. The word " shall " is an impossible word to use in this context, because it removes all flexibility from management and at the end of the day job evaluation is essentially a matter for management decision. That is not to say that management should not consult the trade unions. It would be remiss of any management concerned with job evaluation not to consult the trade unions.
Most managements today do this. Clearly, it is the trade unions' job to work within the factory or works to see that management does consult with them. There are many demarcation disputes in industry and they usually arise because trade unions are engaged with management in consultation on job evaluation. It often happens that a dispute arises because one union cannot agree with another. To ask management to consult with trade unions would be putting the obvious into the Bill, because this is what happens.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Not always.

Mr. Lewis: The general structure of the Bill as far as it applies to equal pay will encourage them to do so. I am not sure where this comes in on equal pay, since the whole of the Bill is based on the need for management to have a look at the pay structure of women in relation to men. In so far as they have to do this in any event, under the Bill they will be involved in a revaluation of jobs as they relate to women and as applied to the rates that men are receiving.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that some trade unions are now training their staff in the techniques of job evaluation? Does he not feel that these people should be brought in at the very start of such an exercise?

Mr. Lewis: I have no doubt that managements who know that trade union representatives have been trained in this area will make good use of them. It is to the advantage of management that they should do so, since it is all to the good

to get the co-operation of the unions. This has been a valuable debate, but I doubt whether this Amendment is acceptable and should be written into the Bill.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The principle we are arguing tonight has been accepted in industry for the last 50 years. Job evaluation as we now see it has developed as a refinement—it is not yet an exact science —of the old piece-work system, which was resisted by the unions for many years and accepted only when they could get the employers to sign on the dotted line that the trade unions would take part in determining the manner in which the piece-work was applied.
When we see the development of it into the new techniques of job evaluation, it would be absurd to believe that in any factory where there is strong or medium trade union organisation any employer would be so crazy as to try to get away with something like this without consulting the unions. Maybe I was lucky, but I have been fortunate during my life in having been in the midst of a strong trade union organisation. We occasionally allowed the employers to consult us; we were very democratic. This problem will not arise where there is strong trade union organisation. In that case I do not believe that the tribunals we are setting up will ever have to be consulted.
I am not talking of brute strength being applied in a factory. I am talking about the understanding between management and union. They would consider it a defeat to have to take anything outside the factory. They would say that it was a weakness which would have to go. We are concerned to get the same kind of high-quality decisions in factories where there is inadequate union representation. It would be completely unfair to employers who are working jointly with unions and getting proper results from negotiations if employers with whom they have to compete were allowed to get away with applying their own criteria, without having any trade union to put its view.
If the wording of the Amendment is not acceptable, there are times when another place can serve a useful purpose. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to find a way of incorporating the principle for which my hon.


Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) asks. It is obvious that, as this is accepted by both sides, it would be acceptable to another place. We should ask my right hon. Friend to get the words right and get this matter out of the way.

Mrs. Castle: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for his remarks about me. Listening to some of the earlier rather hectoring speeches, I began to get the impression that hon. Members thought that I alone in a united House of Commons was dedicated to the destruction of the principle that trade unions have a right to be consulted before job evaluation schemes are introduced. I therefore appreciated the fact that my hon. Friend reminded the House that I think I have said and done more than anyone in the House to further the principle that employers must not only consult, but take their workers with them in all changes of industrial practice if we are not to have absolute chaos and bitterness on the shop floor. I have said this about productivity and certainly about job evaluation schemes, and I say it again.
Let us get this clear. There is no division whatever between us, not only on the desirability but on the absolute essentiality of having employers, where they have trade unions in their factories, taking the commonsense step of good management and consulting the chaps and taking them with them all along the line.

Sir D. Glover: And the girls.

Mrs. Castle: Unisex—" chaps " includes girls.
But we are all agreed—even the mover of the Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), I think, and certainly her supporters—that this Amendment will not do. It will not do for a number of reasons. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) argued very cogently, and, I thought, constructively. I thought that he was with the spirit of the proposal and I was sorry that he was jeered at to some extent when he pointed out that we need this agreement at the outset of a scheme, but that there are technical

processes involved in the actual evaluating work which could not be done jointly.
They are too technical and even employers would not be capable of carrying them out. The words " jointly evaluate " carry technical connotations which it is impossible to accept. Let us be adult and recognise that.
There are other difficulties about the Amendment. It is not clear what the Amendment would have us do about job evaluation exercises carried out before the operative date of the legislation. Are they to be re-evaluated, with a process of trade union agreement, step by step? There is also a suggestion that the Amendment might make job evaluation mandatory. I am not standing on these technicalities, but on something much more fundamental, that the Amendment is not what the T.U.C. has asked for. It has not asked that jobs should be jointly evaluated. The appropriate passage has been read out from the report on equal pay which is going to the T.U.C. Women's Conference. It says that there must at all stages be agreement with the unions.
Of course, we are agreed on this, but the impression has been given tonight that there has been a great issue of principle at stake between the Under-Secretary of State and me on the one hand and the T.U.C. on the other. I want to get this into perspective. I have genuine anxieties about the right way of tackling this which I want to put to hon. Members and which I hope the House will accept as being sincerely expressed.
I have never been at issue about this with the T.U.C. In a letter of a few days ago the T.U.C., after further considering the Bill, asked me to give consideration to substituting certain words designed to secure this effect. Of course, I am prepared to give consideration to it. There is not a single proposition that the T.U.C. has put forward that I have not given careful consideration to. I have met a great many of them, just as I have met several points raised by this side of the House in Committee. If I am convinced that this is the right place and the right way to do it, and that it will carry out my aim, why should I object to it?
The reason we did not respond to my hon. Friend's Amendment in Committee


was that it was restrictive, as she has admitted. She has had another shot—jolly good luck to her, but she has not got it quite right. I am genuinely afraid that if these words are inserted they may produce a restrictive effect in another form. Any reference in the Bill to consultation or agreement with trade unions about job evaluation schemes would have to be limited to the purpose of avoiding discrimination against women, because this is an equal pay Bill.
My hon. Friend said that job evaluation schemes should be agreed with the trade unions—as if anybody disagreed with her! She quoted the nationalisation of the coal industry, when the pits were nationalised and a joint job evaluation scheme was carried out in consultation with the trade unions, but that had nothing to do with equal pay.
We want to fight for the principle that any job evaluation scheme in any circumstances is carried out in agreement with the trade unions, as part of good industrial relations practice, not only as part of our struggle for equal pay.

Mr. John Homer: If that is the general concept, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a good place to start?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend may succeed in convincing me, but I am putting the reasons that have made us hesitate, and they are very good industrial relations points. I want the House to listen to them before I put a certain proposal to the House.
10.45 p.m.
This has been our reason for anxiety in resisting the Amendment. My hon. Friends may say that it would be a starting point, but we would be taking a general industrial relations principle which should go into an industrial relations Bill and putting it into a Bill dealing with equal pay. We have not got a form of words we could be happy about in this context, but if we accepted the Amendment we should be placing on the tribunal not only the job of interpreting whether the law on equal pay was being fairly applied, but of interpreting an industrial relations situation. It would have to deal with such ques-

tions as what is the appropriate recognised trade union. It would start off with an argument about that.
I am putting the sort of problems that we have had to think about. We have to think about what words will mean in law and their practical consequences. With this Amendment, we would be in danger of saying and this is what I am afraid of—that, unless the job could be proved to have been jointly evaluated by the appropriate trade union, the woman might be losing her rights. These are the kind of difficulties I am concerned about.
What we want is trade union agreement to all types of job evaluation schemes. My hon. Friend said that this would be the right starting point logically, but it may be the most illogical starting point because, if the employer has not taken into account the views of the trade unions, has not won their agreement and, therefore, has produced a job evaluation scheme which they think is full of discrimination against women, they have the tribunal to go to.
This is the point of reference for the trade unions where they can make their challenge. The fact that the tribunal is there, and that the trade unions can take the employers before it, will be a massive lever for making sure that any employer in his right senses will take the precaution of consulting the trade unions in the first place about a job evaluation scheme. I put these points to my hon. Friends as issues of validity.

Mr. Orme: I understand the serious points which my right hon. Friend is making, but I think that she is making a hypothetical case of the difficulty of differentiating between trade unions within an industry. If we write a provision like this Amendment into the Bill, the trade unions will resolve the negotiating point. If the matter has to be taken to the tribunal, it will still have to come back to the factory to be resolved. We should surely start by trying to resolve the matter in the factory itself and not by taking it outside.

Mrs. Castle: But if the tribunal finds for them, then that becomes part of the contract of employment of the women concerned there and then. There are counter-arguments of substance from our point of view which should be given


more thought than they have been given by my hon. Friends so far and by the T.U.C.
The reason is that it is only in the last few days that the suggestion has been made that I might reconsider this matter after consultations have been held face to face with the T.U.C. I suggest that it would be absurd for us to quarrel about the best way of applying something on which we are all wholeheartedly agreed. It would be absurd to divide the House and pillory the Government, because they might have a genuinely sound basis for disagreeing about how it should be done.
I suggest that I should tell the T.U.C., having received its letter and now that I have this point, that it needs to be further discussed between us face to face so that I can put the anxieties that I have explained to the House. I might convince the T.U.C. I do not know. The T.U.C. might convince me. But together we might work out a form of words. If that were done, and I was satisfied that there was something that we ought to do in the Bill which would not prejudice other situations, and we could find a way of doing it, there is another place where it could be done. However, I should not wish to accept this suggestion, even in principle, until I have had these further consultations with the T.U.C.

Sir D. Glover: Is not what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) pertinent to this point? The right hon. Lady has said that the matter will be taken to the tribunal, but the tribunal is not in a position to evaluate jobs. Therefore, the hon. Member for Salford, West is right in saying that, whatever the decision of the tribunal, it will have to be taken back to the factory floor to be sorted out. The tribunal would only be able to say that the firm in question was not carrying out the Act. So the matter would then have to go back to the factory floor, the trade union would have to be brought into it, and the job would have to be evaluated. I do not see why the right hon. Lady is objecting so much to what has been proposed.

Mrs. Castle: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) would wish to find himself in partnership with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—[Interrup-

tion.] Really, my hon. Friend and I were getting on perfectly well without the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We were understanding each other very well and I hoped that we were about to reach agreement.
One of the purposes of the tribunal is so that the union can go to it and claim that a job evaluation scheme is, in certain respects, discriminatory against women and that the scheme has to be amended. But everything has to go back in the end to agreement on the shop floor. This is what we want. We are arguing about the best way to achieve it.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the National Superannuation and Social Services Bill, two weeks ago, there was a similar argument concerning consultation with trade unions about pensions? We voted against that Amendment. But at a later stage the Minister of State brought in another Amendment worded in a different way which gives trade unions the right to be consulted about pensions. Could not my right hon. Friend follow a similar course on this occasion?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend could not have heard what I said. Not having discussed this matter with the T.U.C., it having come in as an afterthought from the T.U.C., I want an opportunity to discuss it and to air my anxieties. Then, if I feel that something should be done, I will come back with an appropriate Amendment through another place. I ask the House to accept this course, because I believe that there are points which it would be wise for me to discuss with the T.U.C.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, for the reasons that I have given, so that we can proceed along the lines that I have suggested.

Mrs. Renée Short: I thank my right hon. Friend for the way that she has explained her view on the Amendment.
I am not one to turn aside a friendly proferred hand. I understand that my right hon. Friend will have her discussions at the earliest possible opportunity and that she will come back at some suitable stage with a form of words embodying the spirit of the Amendment, which has been accepted on both sides,


and which my right hon. Friend, of course, accepts. Certainly, no one on this side has suggested that she was apart from us on this matter because it is a good, sound Socialist principle on which we are all united.
On that understanding I would wish to withdraw the Amendment.

Mrs. Castle: May I, just to be perfectly clear, —

Hon. Members: No.

Mrs. Castle: —on a point of explanation—

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Lady has not had the courtesy to ask the House for leave to speak again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Minister does not require the leave of the House to speak again.

Mrs. Castle: I am sure that I do not need the leave of the House to be honest with my hon. Friend, which is what I am anxious to do. I said that I would consult the T.U.C. The outcome might be that it will agree with me, and not with my hon. Friend. I do not want my hon. Friend to be under any misunderstanding about what I have undertaken to do. If I can reach agreement with the T.U.C. on something which we both feel is of value, I shall certainly take action in another place.

Mr. James Ramsden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was not my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) right in saying that if leave is asked to withdraw an Amendment, and the debate then continues, the Amendment cannot be withdrawn?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) had not completed her speech when the Minister rose to intervene. Mrs. Renée Short.

Mrs. Renée Short: May I make it clear that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

DISPUTES AS TO, AND ENFORCEMENT OF, REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL TREATMENT

Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 3, line 25, leave out ' an industrial tribunal ' and insert ' industrial arbitrators '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we take the following Amendments: Nos. 36, 38, line 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45.

Mr. Booth: This is a further Amendment which embodies a view of the T.U.C., and on this one there will not be any argument about whether there has been recent prior consultation, because representatives of the General Council met my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on 18th February and expressed concern about this matter.
The Amendment proposes that industrial arbitrators should adjudicate in disputes on equal pay claims instead of industrial tribunals. Those who, like myself, have had the fortune, or misfortune, of representing employees before industrial tribunals know that at such a tribunal one usually faces three men, one of whom is deemed to be a work-people's representative, frequently somebody proposed by the trades council, one of whom is an employer's representative, and one of whom, usually the man sitting in the centre, is a lawyer.
The difficulty which one usually experiences is that of explaining to the lawyer what one is talking about when referring to the conditions which appertain in the factory or the place at which the person one is representing normally works. The worker is generally liable to be bewildered by the fact that the lawyer cannot understand any of the terms which he, the worker, comes across every day in his work place.
While the chairman of the tribunal, who is the lawyer, is undoubtedly completely independent, he is not knowledgeable about industry in terms of what happens on the workshop floor. His rôle is not only to be an impartial third party, but to advise on questions of law. It seems to me that when we come to consider what sort of tribunal should consider whether an equal pay claim is being properly met there will not be quite


the same necessity for someone to have an understanding of the law as there is in industrial tribunal cases.
There will, however, be an even greater necessity to understand what happens in industry. Therefore, it is important that those who are to adjudicate should have a fairly sound working knowledge of the industry on which they have to adjudicate—or the industry whose wage claims they have to adjudicate whenever there is a contested claim by women employees seeking the tribunal's protection.
11.0 p.m.
If one is a lawyer among adjudicators, one may hear of working practices or of a job one has not previously heard of. I have had the experience of a chairman with no knowledge of the job or process concerned. If he asks what certain machines or tools are, the sort of answer he receives will depend on the sort of impression one is seeking to make with him. If one is seeking to make the impression that the job is different because it has a different name and must therefore, be different in value, the question will be answered in one way, but the trade union member will tend to answer in the contrary way, that the job is the same and of equal value. The distinctions will be meaningless in terms of equal pay claims.
It is reasonable to suggest that we need to have industrial adjudicators who know a lot about the industry which is to be discussed when they come to adjudicate. I am not suggesting that one does not need some legal knowledge, or that adjudicators do not need an appreciation of legal processes, but the knowledge of law they require is of a relatively small branch of the law, whereas the knowledge required about the industry from which the claims come has to be reasonably wide and is not the sort of knowledge which they can acquire by question and answer in the case before them.
That is the basis of the Amendment and I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to respond to this Amendment, appreciating, as she will by virtue of her post, the vast complications of considering claims if one has no detailed knowledge of the industry. It must have been her experience since she took over her difficult post, to have been faced with precisely the same sort

of problem which lawyers face as chairmen of tribunals.
Amendment No. 36 proposes to remove Clause 2 (2), which empowers the Secretary of State to act on a woman's behalf by taking her case to an industrial tribunal. This subsection would, or could, advantage non-trade unionists as against trade unionists, since, judging by the interpretation which the Secretary of State put on this on Second Reading, it is evident that the Secretary of State would regard the sort of person requiring this protection as the sort of person not normally having trade union representation. My right hon. Friend would probably take the view that if a trade unionist went to a local branch of the Department of Employment and Productivity, and suggested that the Secretary of State should act on her behalf, the answer she would probably receive would be that she should get the union to do it for her.
It is not the job of Members of Parliament with trade union interests to support legislation which places the non-unionist at an advantage. There is a danger that tribunals would regard in a different light those cases in which they dealt with the Secretary of State, from those concerning local people or union representatives, since the very fact that the Secretary of State had referred a case to it would contain the element of approval by a Government Department. This will not make for the fairest consideration by tribunals.
We have to consider at what stage the Secretary of State should offer protection to a person who has gone to a tribunal. I accept that an element of State protection is needed, but it should be the same as that under the Redundancy Payments Act and the Contracts of Employment Act. That is to say, where it has been agreed before the tribunal that the complainant has a justifiable case for back pay and the employer still refuses to meet it, the Secretary of State should then act to see that the employer complies with the tribunal's decision. That is the Secretary of State's proper rôle.
Although we cannot take a decision on the Amendment tonight, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider this further, and perhaps deal with it at a later stage.

Mrs. Castle: There are two separate points here. The first was my hon.


Friend's concern about the type of tribunals. I found it a little difficult, in view of the hubbub, to follow all his points, but I hope that I have understood him. I understand that the Amendment, in substituting industrial arbitrators for industrial tribunals, seeks an alteration not in the procedure or sanctions but merely in the nature of the chairmanship. My hon. Friend said that he did not think this an appropriate case for a lawyer to be in the chair. As we have said previously, this is a matter for the procedural regulations, and does not need any Amendment to the Bill.
There are strong arguments for having lawyers on tribunals, because they are not arbitrators. They are applying the law to particular cases and if the women are to get their legal rights, this is what we must ensure. The industrial expertise which he rightly says is essential to these tribunals is provided by the representatives of the workers' and employers' sides. They are drawn from people experienced in industry for that purpose.
I therefore do not reject my hon. Friend's suggestion out of hand. There might well be cases in which one might wish to have non-lawyer chairmen, or what he would call industrial arbitrators. But is it a matter for the regulations. It is not necessary to amend the Bill in order to have chairmen from industry. We will consider the matter very carefully before drawing up the regulations.
By Amendment No. 36 my hon. Friend has reopened the argument which some of my hon. Friends have used before against my having a residual power to take the initiative in bringing a case before the tribunal. He seems to think that this would put the non-unionist at an advantage in relation to the unionist. I think that he is stretching the point a very great deal. In taking this power it is not proposed that I should be popping up every few minutes with this case and that, and doing the trade union's job for it.
That would be wrong. As I have said at every stage of our discussions, it is no part of my job in this legislation to make it unnecessary for women to join trade unions: on the contrary, I have made it clear the only way in which women

will reap the full advantage from the Bill is by joining trade unions.
It is, therefore, only in the very minority of cases that the power is likely to be used, but I feel it necessary that, as guardian of public policy in this respect, I should have this residual power, so that in flagrant cases where trade union organisation is non-existent or very weak —and in dealing with women's legislation we are, unfortunately, always dealing with an area of very weak trade unionism—employers should not be able to get away with a grave affront to public policy because of the lack of this residual power.
I hope that my hon. Friends will accept what I have said, and that the House will reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir D. Glover: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 27, at end insert
'or by the representatives of such persons '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

11.15 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: Our debate on Amendment No. 11 was all sweetness and light until the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State, who is notorious for it, allowed the vitriol to come out in connection with a perfectly innocent and sensible interjection on my part. That was rather foolish of her. It tempted us to change the atmosphere of the House from that of peace and quiet to, perhaps, that of party controversy.
The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) made clear in that debate what a vital part the trade unions will have to play in this procedure but, as I understand it, under Clause 2 it will be the Secretary of State, and not the trade unions, who will make representations to the tribunal. If equal pay is to be implemented, it is vital that persons affected should be able to appoint their representatives, which in most cases could mean a trade union, but it could mean other organisations, to put their case to the tribunal. It is a great weakness in the Bill that this does not appear to be so.
The Under-Secretary said that he himself was not clear about the implications of certain things. There seems to be a certain degree of cloud about what is and is not covered. As I understand, under Clause 2 a person who feels that he is adversely affected and believes that the object of the Bill has not been carried out would have to make representations to the Secretary of State, who would make representations to the tribunal. Such a person would not be allowed to let his representatives make direct representations to the tribunal.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), who is a lawyer, will appreciate that this will cause chaos. The ordinary, sensible way for any of the Bill to work would be for a recognised and accepted representative of workers, either through their association or their trade union, to be able to make representations. Hence the Amendment. In Committee, the Government refused to accept a similar Amendment which would have secured this desirable result.
I do not understand how the right hon. Lady envisages that the system will work in practice. We are talking about millions of people. If there is no machinery by which their representatives can make representations to the Tribunal, and if in every small factory workers who feel that they are adversely affected and that their employer is not carrying out the objects of the Bill, will have to form a committee and make submissions to the Department, it will not work in practice. There must be machinery on the ground so that anybody who feels adversely affected can immediately go to the local branch of his union or to some other organisation, which would then be responsible for making representations to the tribunal.
I do not put myself forward as an expert, but I think I have a degree of common sense. Unless the Amendment is accepted, I cannot see how the scheme will work—unless there is much more decentralisation than there appears to be under the Clause.

Mr. John Page: If there are two nonmembers of trade unions and one member, what is to happen to the nonmembers?

Sir D. Glover: The bulk of people will have a union to represent them. That is

why the words " the representatives " appear. I am not saying that the Secretary of State should not have any right to make representations, because I accept that there may be people who are so under-represented that there may be only the right hon. Lady and her Department who could protect their interests. I do not wish the Secretary of State to be taken out of the provisions but I wish the trade unions to be brought into them. In many cases of small firms with nonunion labour it might be felt that the only way to have a grievance remedied was to approach the Department. That might apply to one case in eight.

Mr. Holland: The Amendment refers to " representatives of such persons ". They could appoint anyone they wished to make representations. If they were trade unionists, they would appoint their trade unions—but they could appoint someone else.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hoped that I was making that point clear.
If the Amendment is accepted, then no doubt in most cases the trade unions will make the representations on behalf of their members. But in a non-union firm, the employees might form a committee to become the representatives of the workers in that firm. If the Secretary of State is the only person who can make representations on their behalf, the Department will be inundated, certainly in the early days, by requests from people who feel that the Bill is not being implemented quickly enough in their organisations.
None of that trouble need arise if the Amendment is accepted. Under our proposal, no doubt in five cases out of six the trade unions would make the representations to the tribunal, but in a non-union organisation a committee might be formed—or they might even engage a lawyer. The Department would be involved only in a very few cases. If the Amendment is not accepted the Department will be bogged down with the administration of the Act.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The Amendments seek to provide in the Bill itself for the right of organisations representing women employees and individual employers, and in


particular trade unions and employers' associations, to take cases to industrial tribunals and to appear before them.
When the matter was discussed at some length in Committee, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), undertook to consider whether the matter might not be dealt with in the Bill rather than in regulations. It was right that that undertaking to reconsider the matter should be given, because it is obviously of great importance that employees and employers, and indeed industrial tribunals, should have the assistance of trade unions and employers' associations in connection with the proceedings under the Bill.
On consideration, however, my right hon. Friend and I, too, still think that the Amendments are unnecessary and that the course proposed of dealing with these matters by regulation is the appropriate course. I hope that when I have explained what is contemplated, the mystery that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) sees in the proposed machinery will no longer be mysterious.
In my view, it is not necessary—indeed, it may well be undesirable—that the Bill itself should contain a specific provision to cover the points which are raised in the Amendments. It is a sound general rule that if Acts of Parliament are not to be unduly lengthened, procedural matters should be dealt with in subordinate legislation. An illustration of the application of the rule is, perhaps, Section 3 (6) of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949. It makes no specific provision for the representation of one person by another and it is noteworthy that the rules made under it—the Lands Tribunal Rules, 1963, which were made by a Lord Chancellor of the previous Administration—provide right of audience:
 In any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party may appear and be heard either in person, or by counsel or solicitor, or by any other person allowed by leave of the Tribunal (or by leave of the President or of the registrar in the case of an interlocutory application) to appear instead of any party ".
That scheme and way of dealing with the matter is on all fours with what is proposed in the Bill and the regulations that will be made under it.
If in the Bill we were to depart from the rule that procedural matters should be dealt with in subordinate legislation, we should have to go on doing so in similar legislation hereafter. That, however, is not the only objection to the course that is proposed in the Amendments.
Although industrial tribunals are relatively new, they have been functioning for several years and dealing with cases relating, among other things in industrial relations, to the important matter of redundancy payments. The industrial tribunals which have been dealing with redundancy payments questions are set up by regulations and the procedure before them is dealt with in those regulations. It is imperative that those regulations should contain, as they do, adequate and appropriate safeguards to cover the position of trade unions and employers' associations, and, indeed, the individual non-trade unionist who may wish to bring matters before them.
My right hon. Friend is under a statutory duty under Section 46(1)(e) of the Redundancy Payments Act to make regulations to cover equal pay matters, and this she will have to do if and when the Bill becomes law. Moreover, she is under a statutory duty to consult the Council on Tribunals about the form and content of the proposed regulations.
The House will recall that the Council on Tribunals was set up by Parliament to oversee the working of such institutions as the industrial tribunals as regards both the regulations which govern their practice and procedure and as regards their functioning generally to see that justice is done in their proceedings. I can certainly give an assurance that the regulations will provide that the rights with which we are concerned will be fully and adequately dealt with.
I understand that two points are raised by the Amendments: first, the right to institute proceedings; and secondly, the right to appear before the tribunals once proceedings are started. I have taken the opportunity of looking into what happens under the Regulations which deal with proceedings before tribunals under the Redundancy Payments Act. Those regulations, which were made in consultation with the Council on Tribunals, should furnish an appropriate precedent for the


regulations that we shall make for equal pay cases.
11.30 p.m.
On the right to institute proceedings there is no specific provision in the redundancy payments rules for trade unions and employers' associations to be able to commence proceedings on behalf of their members. This is because it is entirely unnecessary that there should be such a provision. Trade unions and employers' associations are entitled to act in these matters on behalf of their members and it is accepted that they may do so as their members' agents. Since the redundancy scheme has operated trade unions and employers' associations representatives have appeared in hundreds of cases, and there has been no difficulty about their right to initiate proceedings and to appear before the tribunals.
These matters have never been called in question. There is no difficulty here, and there will be no difficulty under this scheme. As I have said, the power and authority of unions and associations has never been called in question, and those rights are being exercised almost every day, as they have been for several years. It would be very undesirable for us to call this right to institute proceedings into question, as accepting the Amendments might do.
An unwanted side effect of the proposed Amendment might be to create doubt where none now exists. There might well be a danger that unions and employers' associations could not act in redundancy matters on behalf of their members without our having to introduce some specific Parliamentary authority, which at present does not exist. This might cause considerable difficulties, and might undermine the whole position in respect of redundancy cases.

Sir D. Glover: Surely, as a lawyer, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that it is far better for the public good if something can be clearly laid down in a Statute, in simple language and few words, rather than be produced by regulations afterwards.

The Attorney-General: I have sought to explain why, in legislation dealing in industrial relations, suddenly to try to do so now, when the matter is not in dispute and is accepted as permissible prac-

rice would create nothing but confusion and doubt. The matter has been unchallenged and accepted for a long time.
The right to appear before tribunals—the right of audience and the right to address tribunals in the proceedings—is confined in courts of law to the legal profession, but in cases coming before industrial tribunals it is necessary and appropriate that trade unions and employers' associations should have the same rights of audience as the legal profession has in the courts and before tribunals. It is right that it should be spelt out in the regulations, as undoubtedly it will be.
For instance, in the Industrial Tribunals (Redundancy Payments) Regulations, we see, in Rule of Procedure 7(1) —on the subject of representation—
 Subject to Rule 3 (2)"—
which is not relevant for this purpose—
 at any hearing of or in connection with an originating application a party may appear and may be heard in person or be represented by counsel or solicitor or by a representative of a trade union or of an employers' association or with the leave of the tribunal by any other person 
That is the kind of rule of procedure that we should adapt for the purposes of these equal pay references. Accordingly, the regulations are the right place to deal with this matter. It is the appropriate place, and while I appreciate the concern which gave rise to the Amendments, it is unnecessary to do what is proposed and it might create confusion where none now exists.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 were debated at considerable length in Committee. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to take a question to an industrial tribunal when it appears to her that it is not reasonable to expect the women concerned to take steps to have the question determined. We consider that the provision is essential for the protection of women who might otherwise be inhibited, for fear of causing bad relations with their employer, from taking a case to the tribunal. It is especially necessary in situations where the trade union organisation is not strong and we believe that equal pay will have a wide application in such areas. It is not something which could be done by procedure or regulations, but is properly provided for in the Bill.
Amendment No. 15 would replace the Secretary of State's powers by a corresponding power for organisations representing the person concerned. This, I submit, would weaken the Bill because it cannot be assumed, in every case at any rate, that trade unions, even where there are trade unions involved, and there may be cases where there are not, would be willing to be active in taking equal pay cases to a tribunal. There are precedents for the Secretary of State taking cases to a court on her own initiative. The most useful precedent is in Section 19(5) of the Wages Councils Act, 1959. Under that Section, the Secretary of State can initiate civil proceedings in the courts to secure the payment of proper wages under the Act. Under Section 12 of the Agricultural Wages Act, there is provision in respect of the Minister of Agriculture of a similar kind.
The provisions in regard to reinstatement in employment in the National Service (Amendment) Act, 1948, also included the power for the Minister of Labour to take cases on his own initiative to the courts. I submit that it has to be borne in mind in considering the rights conferred on the Secretary of State in this Bill that there is no provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to operate an inspectorate along the lines of that in the Wages Council area. In the light of this it is not unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have the right to access to tribunals on behalf of aggrieved women in the exceptional circumstances where the situation might call for her intervention. Women are bound to come to her Department for advice from time to time, as they do, and in some cases it may be appropriate for her to take up their cases for them.
Amendment No. 16 would add to the power of the Secretary of State to take cases to an industrial tribunal a corresponding power for trade unions—not apparently for employers' associations—to take cases to a tribunal. This is similar to the thought that prompted Amendment No. 14 proposing that claims to a tribunal could be made by the representatives of the women concerned. They will certainly have the power to do that under the proposed regulations. If it is any reassurance to the House I will undertake that I will examine the regulations before they are introduced

to ensure that they do give effect to what I have said.
I hope the House may feel that, while it was right to raise these matters to be sure that there is a proper right of audience and a proper way of dealing with these matters, in the light of what I have said the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that detailed and helpful explanation. It is with some hesitation that I venture to challenge or question one or two of the assertions which he made.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman relied on this being a purely procedural matter. I suggest that it is more; it is fundamental. When, on Second Reading, the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) made an intervention, it was stressed that normally the person's trade union would take up the case. It was implicit that the right of representation would be spelled into the Bill, but the Attorney-General has relied on this as being appropriate for regulation as it is purely procedural, but I suggest that in following subsecution there are other matters which are no less procedural.
Subsection (3) refers to the procedure to be adopted in striking out claims and counter-claims and the like, matters which with all diffidence in the light of such learned opinion I should have thought appropriate for regulations. If they are to be in the Bill, it is surely no less right that this fundamental point about right of representation should be in it.
The Attorney-General expressed some doubt as to the consequences that would flow from this. If I understood his argument correctly, it was that it is unnecessary to put this in the Bill because it would appear in regulations and to put these words in the Bill might cast doubt on matters which are now clear. He referred to the Redundancy Payments Act as a precedent, but he said there was no statutory authority for the representation as it is now by custom permitted under that Act. The custom adopted under that Act is to be continued here and to give it legislative form and the authority of the Act might reinforce something which by custom is now


accepted but which has no legal validity. That is the weakest of all arguments and it strengthens my support for the Amendments.

The Attorney-General: The position as I see it is that the trade union or employers' association is deemed to be the agent of the working person concerned or the employers concerned. No issue has been raised about this; it is a simple problem of agency.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Again with great humility, I wonder whether the question of a union as an agent for an individual is clear beyond all doubt. Responsibility for the relationship between a union and members of a union is a rather special matter which I will not develop on this Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: Another aspect which the Attorney-General has not covered is that under the Amendment representatives who might be a committee of a group of workers would not be covered.

Mr. Boardman: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I had in mind a situation where a group of people who are not members of a trade union decide to appoint one of themselves or someone with specialised knowledge to represent them before a tribunal. To give legal validity to that, these words should be written into the Bill.
When the Attorney-General quoted instances where representation is allowed but without statutory authority, he did not go so far as to say that there was no precedent for having such words in an Act. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe many Acts provide that a person can appear by representatives before various types of tribunal. I have done no research on this, so I cannot quote one, but I would be surprised not to find a precedent for an express right of representation. I urge that the Amendment which allows a group of workers to appear in this way should be written into the Bill.
A later Amendment deals with the right to initiate proceedings. This should not be left to custom. Workers should know from the time the Bill becomes law that there is a right for representatives on their behalf to initiate proceedings before the tribunal. There is the rather

different issue of the merit of taking out of the hands of the Secretary of State the power of initiation, but I will not develop that argument now.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on the dangers to which he referred if these words are inserted, and weigh them against the undesirability of leaving the matter in doubt, a doubt which he has expressed in referring to the way in which custom operates in other cases.

11.45 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I feel like an intruder in intervening in this debate, in which, so far, the dialogue between the two sides of the House has appeared to be a continuation of private conversations in Committee. I do not object to that, with certain exceptions. It is not inappropriate to mention that the growing habit of the Government to appoint smaller Standing Committees, no doubt desirable from the point of view of Government back benchers, has the unfortunate side effect of eliminating Liberal representation on the Committees, and making it necessary sometimes for us to ventilate on Report points which might have been pursued in Committee had we been there to do so.
I understand from the Attorney-General that the points made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), which I support, are conceded, and that the Bill, when it becomes law, will work in precisely the way he desires. I was not sure what weight to attach to the Attorney-General's presence, since the Under-Secretary, in dealing with an earlier Amendment, said that the Government had had legal advice to keep certain words, but would, nevertheless, accept the Amendment. As the legal advice was ridden over roughshod on one occasion, I wondered whether I should attach great importance to it on this occasion.
The Attorney-General, in rejecting Amendment No. 15, pointed to the need for the Secretary of State to have a role in the institution of proceedings. Industrial tribunals are not appropriate bodies to deal with matters which require a detailed knowledge of the nature of the work and of the bargaining system. I am very much on the side of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr.


Booth), who argued this on an earlier Amendment. The Bill needs conciliation machinery. What the Attorney-General has told us about the role of the Secretary of State as one of the persons to institute proceedings means that the Secretary of State can involve herself or her Department at an early stage. Does this mean that there will be conciliation procedures? Are we to see an extension of the conciliation procedures which already exist within the Department?
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's rejection of Amendment No. 15 means that this is feasible, and perhaps one of the things which will work under the Act although not spelt out in it, I shall be reassured, because I have fears about the possibility of there being a gap between a feeling of complaint arising and the bringing of that complaint to an industrial tribunal. We need something in between by the provision of conciliation procedures. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer herald the existence or development of procedures of that kind?

Mr. R. Carr: We had from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General a lucid and courteous approach to the Amendments. But I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that it was just the sort of approach that sometimes makes non-lawyers despair of the law. It was clear and courteous, but, by its complete obsession with precedent, was completely out of touch with the feelings and the need for change.
One of the greatest difficulties, and not only in the law—as a Conservative I certainly feel it—is to combine respect for valued tradition and precedent with a proper awareness of the danger that one can be so hidebound by tradition and precedent that one will not adopt new methods and new approaches.
What were the right hon. and learned Gentleman's two main arguments about Amendment No. 14 and, perhaps, Amendment No. 16? First, he said that they were unnecessary. I think that possibly he convinced me that they are unnecessary. They are unnecessary unless one has no faith in what the Government say about their intention to introduce regulations, and we are not accusing the Government of lack of good faith. We

are sure, when they say they will introduce the necessary regulations, that they will do so. But the matter goes beyond that.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the Amendments would possibly be objectionable because for one thing they might create confusion, might create doubts that what was an accepted right was no longer to be taken for granted. That seemed to me an extraordinary legalistic argument. If that is the way our lawyers, courts and judges work, it brings me back to my remarks about despairing of the law, but I cannot believe that it is the way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) said, this is an accepted right but not a statutory right. The precedents which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted were not really on all fours with this case. First, the Bill deals with terms and conditions of employment. That is a more emotional subject even than redundancy payments, which is fairly near to this matter, although some of the other precedents he quoted are far removed from the psychological atmosphere of work in industry.
When dealing with terms and conditions of employment, it is necessary to recognise that it is just as well to state rights and not to expect people to understand these legal precedents, which may be commonplace and common knowledge to right hon. and learned Gentlemen but not to the public at large. That applies particularly in this Bill. This is surely a Bill in which ordinary people should be able to read and understand what their rights are.
The Bill was criticised in Committee as being in many places—and I so described it—gobbledegook to the ordinary person. So much of it is very unclear. I suppose, however reluctantly, we may have to accept that we cannot put into the Statute the main provisions of a Bill of this kind without talking in language which the ordinary man and woman particularly woman in this case—may find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand.
But, for that very reason, since it affects everyday life, I think that somewhere the Bill should make very clear


indeed that a man or a woman can definitely, without doubt of any kind, turn to his or her trade union, or, if he or she is not a member of a trade union, know by the statement of a trade union's rights in the Bill—this would be a good reason for joining a trade union—that there is somewhere to go, first, to have their rights explained and, secondly, if necessary, to have them referred to, and be represented at, the tribunal.
There is a case here, which perhaps does not apply to other Bills, for stating this fact clearly in the basic Bill. I do not believe that the reasons given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman against doing that were nearly strong enough to override the practical day to day reasons for doing it.
The other argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman against it was procedural. I do not want to spend time on that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West answered that point very clearly by pointing out immediately that there are other parts of the Bill which are clearly procedural. If we can write certain lengthy procedural parts into the body of the Bill, why cannot we write in about five words, even though they are procedural, to make clear to people reading the Bill what their rights are?
Thus far, I believe that I may be speaking not just for myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, but for a number of hon. Members opposite, and a number of trade union leaders, trade unionists, and ordinary people outside the House. I realise that what I am about to say now about the powers of the Secretary of State may command less common consent than on another group of Amendments, but, nevertheless, I want to say it. We believe that we are right in having an overriding objection in principle to

Ministers getting directly involved in intervention in industrial relations. I argued this point in Committee at somewhat greater length, and I will not repeat it at this hour of night. However, I ask the House to accept that we believe that there is a principle involved here.

We are not impressed when the right hon. and learned Gentleman quotes precedents like the Wages Councils Act. The approach of lawyers at times makes us despair, because they delve back into the past. Surely, in 1970, conditions are totally different from what they were when the wages councils legislation was passed. The intention was that this sort of regulation should be temporary.

The Donovan Report, only two years ago, took up the point and tried to give the Government a push on in getting rid of wages councils; it encouraged their removal. In 1970, we ought not to be bringing into argument a precedent based on legislation enacted many years ago in totally different conditions which was intended to be temporary and which certainly we all wish to see made unnecessary as soon as possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has certainly not convinced us by his arguments.

We accept the good faith. We accept that the result which we want can be achieved without our Amendment, but we nevertheless believe strongly that the arguments for writing into the Bill the words at least of our first Amendment are much stronger than the arguments against writing them in, and if the Government will not think again I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 179.

Division No. 105.]
AYES
[12 midnight


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-unon-Tyne,N.)


Allason, James (James Hempstead)
Chataway, Christopher
Emery, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eyre, Reginald


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Biffen, John
Cordle, John
Fortescue, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Corfield, F. V.
Fry, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dance, James
Clover, Sir Douglas


Body, Richard
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Glyn, Sir Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dean, Paul
Cower, Raymond


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Grant, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, G. B.
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Grieve, Percy


Burden, F. A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)




Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maginnis, John E.
Speed, Keith


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Nell
Stainton, Keith


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Temple, John M.


Hill, J. E. B.
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Holland, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Waddington, David


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, John
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Kimball, Marcus
Pounder, Rafton
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kitson, Timothy
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


King, Tom
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lane David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Worsley, Marcus


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wright, Esmond


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



MacArthur, Ian
Silvester, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Humphrey Atkins and


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp; L'mington)
Mr. Jasper More.


McNair-Wilton, Patrick (NewForest)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P.


Alldritt, Walter
Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Areher, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashley, Jack
Golding, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Htiddersfield,E.)


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian


Binns, John
Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hazell, Bert



Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boston, Terence
Hobden, Dennis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Horner, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brooks, Edwin
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Neal, Harold


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Newens, Stan


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfieid, Leslie
Norwood, Christopher


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Cakes, Gordon


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
O'Malley, Brian


Dalyelt, Tarn
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orbach, Maurice


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W,Ham,S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rbondda, West)
Park, Trevor


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr Mrs Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dickens, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pentland, Norman


Dobson, Ray
Latham, Arthur
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John (Reading)
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)




Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mabon Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul


Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil
Sillars, J.


Fernyhough, E.
McCann, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacColl, James
Sheldon, Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)







Silverman, Julius
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Stater, Joseph
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Walden, Brian (An Saints)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Taverne, Dick
Watkins, David (Consett)



Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thin, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Tuck, Raphael
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. James Hamilton.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

MILITARY ENGINEERING EXPERIMENTAL ESTABLISHMENT, CHRISTCHURCH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

12.10 a.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I wish to raise a question of the deepest concern to my constituents—the running down of the Military Engineering Experimental Establishment at Christchurch. I am glad of the opportunity to debate this matter and for the Minister's presence. I want to describe how this sad affair arose and how it has shocked the council and people of Christchurch and the employees of M.E.X.E. Rumours began to circulate towards the end of last year that the establishment was to be run down. As a result, I had a meeting with the Minister just before Christmas at which I was given to understand that, although there would be slight alterations at M.E.X.E., there would not be a serious rundown.
Then, on 1st January this year. the Ministry of Defence wrote to the Town Clerk of Christchurch and other interested parties, announcing in effect that M.E.X.E. was to be run down to 40 per cent of its present size, that 400 men would lose their jobs and that about a quarter would be offered alternative jobs at the Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment at Chertsey.
A number of questions immediately arise. Why was a serious rundown like this sprung on Christchurch and on M.E.X.E. employees after assurances that all was well? Why are decisions like this allowed to explode with no prior warning or discussion? Conduct and

behaviour like the Ministry's would be roundly—and rightly—condemned if private enterprise acted in this way. This is hardly the right way to treat the employees or the community in which they have their homes and play a valuable role. This point must be stressed, for it underlines the concern felt in Christchurch at the Ministry's action.
The rundown of M.E.X.E. was properly described by the Mayor of Christchurch as " a great blow " to the borough, and so it is. For one reason, as he went on to argue:
 What we need is more jobs in the town, not fewer.
But there is far more to our objections to this partial closure. For example, the cost to Christchurch ratepayers is likely to be £10,000, or a 1½d. rate, and the redundancies will have a bad effect not only on employment and the borough finances, but also on the general level of trade in Christchurch.
However, the chief reason for our concern can best be understood when it is realised that M.E.X.E.'s links with Christchurch go back to 1919 and that only last May, Christchurch conferred the freedom of the borough on the establishment. Many of its employees have given devoted public service to the borough and they and their families have been an integral and valuable part of our community. We are concerned about their future as well as that of M.E.X.E. and Christchurch.
I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions which have disturbed all of us in the area. First, I want to refer to the way in which the decision was made and the reasons put forward by the Department for making it. We have been told that a Ministry working group took the decision to transfer M.E.X.E.'s work on equipments in the mechanical and electro-mechanical spheres to F.V.R.D.E., at Chertsey, so as to promote greater efficiency and long-term economy.
Economies are needed, apparently, because of the general cut-back in


defence spending. As part of the economy drive, I was told in a letter by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army:
 We intend to test the willingness of industry to undertake more of this work, and the cost implications.
I understand that the Ministry believes that after 1974, when the reorganisation is completed, savings of £300,000 a year will accrue, but, before 1974, savings will be partially offset by capital expenditure at Chertsey.
I want to know, first, whether the working group which made the decision was looking at all defence establishments or only at M.E.X.E. and, if the latter is the case, why was M.E.X.E. singled out? Is it the case that savings here are thought to be larger than possible savings elsewhere, or only that the Ministry believes that the social effects and costs would be lower in Christchurch than elsewhere.
Secondly, how exactly have these savings been computed? What allowance has been made for the other side of the equation, namely, the cost of redundancies, of social upheaval and of the lack of use of existing premises at M.E.X.E.?
Thirdly, in calculating savings, what allowance has been made for the hardship caused to individuals by the Ministry's decision?
Fourthly, is the Ministry's belief that industry will be able and willing to undertake some of M.E.X.E.'s work just a pious hope, or is it based on concrete evidence and research? Why was not this factor—and, in particular, the " cost implications " referred to by the Minister in his letter—looked at in detail before any decision was taken? Surely the Ministry should have gone into this in more detail before arriving at its decision.
My next major point concerns the move to Chertsey. On a general point, surely the Ministry's decision reverses the national policy of moving civil servants out of London. The employees who are moved are bound to suffer. For example, house prices are about 10 to 20 per cent. higher in Chertsey than in Christchurch, and there is no indication that local authorities in the Chertsey

area have enough land for their own housing requirements, let alone for coping with an influx from outside. How much disturbance allowance will be paid to those who move, and was this amount taken into account when the savings were estimated?
It has also been argued that the office and workshop accommodation at the F.V.R.D.E., at Chertsey, is completely inadequate for the present staff, and that no proposals have yet been put forward for new buildings to house the extra staff from M.E.X.E. At the same time, I understand that the F.V.R.D.E. has great and continuous difficulty in recruiting supporting staff, such as clerical grades, typists and draughtsmen. If this is the case, it seems senseless to move people out of new buildings in Christchurch into an establishment where there are inadequate premises, and into a high cost area where recruitment is difficult.
There are a number of other questions which the Minister should answer. How many of those employees offered jobs in Chertsey have accepted? Has any progress been made in finding alternative employment for those M.E.X.E. workers who have been declared redundant? What help is being tendered to them at present? What is to become of the test grounds at Hurn and Barnsfield Heath, and what is to happen to the lands and premises—some of them new—which will fall into disuse?
I hope that the Minister can answer some of these questions tonight, and if there are any that he is unable to answer now, perhaps he will be good enough to get in touch with me later, for these are vital matters which deserve the closest and most sympathetic attention from his Department. The people of Christchurch feel that M.E.X.E. has been sold down the river, and that the Department's decision was arbitrary and ill-founded. We suspect that the Ministry has made the wrong decision, that it is making false economies on inadequate information, and that it has ignored the needs of the M.E.X.E. employees and of the community in which they live.
I appeal to the Minister to reverse this decision or, at the very least, to give us tonight a far better, more open and more informed justification for sticking to his guns.

12.20 a.m.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) for giving me this opportunity of setting the record straight. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman right away that M.E.X.E. has not been singled out for special treatment. As was made clear recently by the Government's observations on the Second Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, it is our policy continuously to study the need for establishments and the possibility of amalgamation. Similarly, we examine the way in which R. and D. work is done. This applies to Government R. and D. establishments, whether under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence or of the Minister of Technology.
Our concern is to obtain the equipment needed by our forces at a minimum cost in manpower and money. At the same time, when establishments are reduced or closed down, we have a duty to do everything possible to ease the human problems which inevitably arise.
It may be helpful if I say something about why and how we tackled the case of M.E.X.E. which, with effect from 1st April, 1970, has been integrated with the former Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, at Chertsey, into the combined Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment under the charge of one director.
The origins of M.E.X.E. go back to about 1919, shortly after the end of the First World War, when the Experimental Bridging Company of Royal Engineers was set up at Christchurch. Over the years, and particularly from 1962 to 1968, M.E.X.E. was expanded to undertake an increasing programme. In 1968, the peak of this programme was reached. It was then evident from our review of requirements in the longer term that there would be a substantial reduction of both the range of equipment and the quantities needed. This situation was indisputable, whether or not the remaining work was to be done at M.E.X.E.
This was the background to our appointing a working party in 1968, including distinguished representation from outside the Service, to examine the nature

and size of the resources required to develop our future requirements of engineer and logistic equipment for the Army and the R.A.F. The staff side and the trade union side were informed as far back at September, 1968, of the appointment and terms of reference of this working party. Thus, it is 18 months since notice was given of the possibility of future changes.
The working party reported in mid-1969. It recommended substantial reductions in manpower to accord with the smaller programme and put forward alternative courses for the future conduct of the remaining work, including one for complete closure of Christchurch and another for partial transfer of work. It also recommended that, wherever possible, recognising that there are limitations on this, development work should be done in industry.
We were concerned before making final decisions that the full implications of these alternatives should be studied. The hon. Member will be the first to recognise that if a smallish establishment is being reduced substantially, its overheads such as police, firemen and other services tend to bear more heavily on its output. If, therefore, all the remaining work can be transferred to another establishment without too much capital expenditure, whether in bricks and mortar or compensation, this can be worth doing.
There were, besides, a number of special features in the M.E.X.E. case, such as the need for water test facilities for bridging. Other Departments had also to be consulted.
Such was my concern about the rightness of the decision that I went down, with the information supplied to me, to see what the position was and examine it with my advisers. Following the brief look that I had at the situation, I arranged for a small team, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army, who I regret is not able to be here tonight—he is away on Ministerial business in Germany—to consider the whole question carefully and urgently. Therefore, everything was done to ensure that the fullest possible information was before me when the decision had to be taken.
The decisions taken following the recommendations made by this group were


made known to the hon. Member, as he said, and to other hon. Members who have constituency interests, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army wrote to them on 2nd January, 1970. Reference was also made to the decision in paragraph 16 of the Statement of the Defence Estimates, 1970.
The essentials are that there is to be a reduction in the strength of M.E.X.E. from 270 non-industrials to about 100 and from 390 industrials to about 160. These reductions are planned to be achieved over the next two or three years, so that there has been a substantial element of warning. The Bridging Wing, related materials laboratory, engine and container testing facilities, are to be retained at Christchurch, and the balance of the work is to be transferred to Chertsey, where staff will be increased as necessary. As I have said, the two establishments are under the management of the Director, M.V.E.E. The approximate reductions in strength, taking the two establishments together, are: non-industrials, 110 industrials 150. As new projects arise for consideration, we shall look at the possibility of industry taking over some responsibility.
The retention of the bridging work at Christchurch stems, as the hon. Member knows much better than I, from the special physical attributes of the site and from the substantial capital expenditure which would have been involved in transferring this work elsewhere. On the other hand, the transfer of the Mechanical Power and Plant Wings was attractive because of common ground between the two establishments—for instance, in the development and testing of military vehicles, under a variety of conditions, and of components and ancillary equipment for vehicles and materials handling equipment. Their similar tasks require the establishments to have facilities such as test tracks and laboratories, workshops, drawing offices, and administrative services generally.
In consequence, we expect to achieve very useful savings from this rationalisation about one-third of the total annual saving of £300,000 a year which we estimate will result from the rundown. We do not reach this level until about 1974 because of the capital expenditure on works, removal, and so on, during the

intervening years. Benefits are also expected from integration under common management of work in areas where there are interfaces, for example, tanks equipped to carry bridges and to be used for other engineering purposes. The reduced capacity at Christchurch will enable us to free about 12 acres of this valuable site for alternative use.
I turn to other points made by the hon. Member. I recognise, of course, that the announcements must have been very unwelcome to the council and the people of Christchurch, with whom the establishment has built up a very happy relationship over the years. But the hon. Member will be the first to recognise that it could have been made much worse. I suspect that there was a sense of relief that the bridging and other facilities are to remain and that M.E.X.E. is not to be closed. First, I understand that when the hon. Member met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army, just before Christmas, his primary concern, because of gossip in the area, was to ensure that M.E.X.E. was not to be closed down completely, or considered in isolation, but examined on its merits. The hon. Member was assured that there was no question of M.E.X.E. being singled out or treated unfairly. He was told of the importance attached to the special advantages of M.E.X.E. for bridging work.
But I understand that the right hon. Member was not told of the precise nature of the proposals nor were the manpower implications discussed. I have seen the text of the release for the Press which was agreed with my hon. Friend at the end of the brief discussion, and that seems to be consistent with my understanding. Certainly, there was no reference to slight alterations. I cannot agree that this rundown was sprung on M.E.X.E. employees. As I have said, we gave notice of the examination through the normal Whitley machinery as long ago as September, 1968. The Institution of Professional Civil Servants submitted evidence to the original working party and both the Staff side and the trade unions had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State's working group in the autumn of 1969. The organisation of the combined establishment is to be discussed with the staff and the rundown itself is to be phased over two


to three years. There was, of course, no point in announcing the possible decision before it was taken. This would have caused unnecessary alarm. We have ensured the fullest possible consultation on this issue and given very lengthy warning.
The hon. Member asked whether, in estimating the savings, allowance had been made for extra cost. I confirm that it was. We took into account the cost of additional accommodation and facilities at Chertsey, removal expenses, excess rent allowances, other forms of compensation and frictional disturbance resulting from the changes.
The hon. Member's third point was about the allowance made for hardship caused to individuals. All the staff, non-industrial and industrial, who are transferred from Christchurch will be entitled to removal terms, which include payments for transport of furniture, etc., disturbance allowances, additional costs of accommodation and expenses connected with house purchase. There are special terms for those who have only two or three years still to serve and who do not wish to move their home. There will be compensation for those whose employment has to be terminated. I assure the hon. Member that the whole problem is being tackled very sympathetically by all concerned.
On the willingness of industry to undertake some of the tasks of M.E.X.E., the nature of and incidence of the work is such that the scope for major transfer is relatively small. Indeed, it would be something of a bonus. The planned rundown is based on the reduced programme and savings from rationalisation.
The hon. Member is misinformed about the workshop accommodation at Chertsey, which is entirely adequate. It is true that some of the office accommodation is not of the latest standards and there is a scheme for modernisation. However, there will be no major transfer of staff to Chertsey before suitable accommodation is available. As to recruitment, we do not expect that, given the length of the period over which the changes are to be phased, there will be undue difficulty in recruiting such additional staff as may be needed in the Chertsey area.
The hon. Member also asked whether this decision reverses the national policy

of moving civil servants out of London. Chertsey is not regarded as London so far as allowances are concerned. But I agree in principle that, in general, we would have preferred not to move staff from the South Coast nearer to London. We discussed this fully with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and with the Department of Employment and Productivity and it was agreed that, since the numbers involved are small, the employment and regional aspects are outweighed in terms of efficiency and economy.
I cannot yet answer the question about numbers of employees who are willing to go to Chertsey. Plans are being worked out very carefully and there will be full consultation with the staff side and the trade unions. We will fit in with personal circumstances wherever this is possible. I understand that there is concern, quite naturally, among the staff to know as soon as possible the names of those who will remain at Christchurch and those who will transfer or become redundant. I am glad to say that in this last category there are likely to be very few non-industrials. The most specialised staff in the establishment are the scientists, engineers and experimental grades. We expect to settle the future of these grades by about June next. Of those who will not be needed at Christchurch, the majority will be offered posts at Chertsey or elsewhere in Government service.
We expect that the numbers and grades of the other non-industrials who will be retained or available for transfer, or employment elsewhere, will also be known by June, although names will not he known until later. The rules for established civil servants require them to move according to the interests of the Service. However, cases of special hardship will receive sympathetic consideration, and every attempt will be made to fit them and certain temporary staff, who are not obliged to move, into vacancies elsewhere in the area.
On industrials, here again the numbers and grades to be retained will be known by June. Established staff will be offered transfers to Chertsey or elsewhere. As to staff who prefer to remain in the area, or will be redundant, so far they seem to have done reasonably well


in finding alternative employment and, given the length of time over which the rundown is to be phased, we hope that they will be absorbed fairly readily. An examination is in hand of the economics of continuing to use the test grounds at Hurn and Barnsfield Heath after the P.R.A. wing transfers to Chertsey. Factors to be taken into consideration are the availability of land and facilities at Chertsey, and the cost of movement between the two places.
I think that what I have said can be summed up as follows. The need to rationalise was recognised. We did detailed and careful studies. I went there myself, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We had the advice of outside experts as well. There was the fullest possible consideration of the issue. There was the fullest possible consultation before coming to a decision. Then the decision itself was announced, and from the moment of announcing it the actual phasing down is to take place over a period of two or three years.
I think that we in the Ministry of Defence, however popular or unpopular the decision may be—and I appreciate the sentiments of the people

of Christchurch—can hold our heads high for the way in which we have managed this difficult issue by giving the fullest possible warning to the people involved and catering for their needs.
I would like, finally, to pay tribute to the outstanding work of M.E.X.E, particularly in military bridging. It has achieved world recognition in this field and I am glad to say that recent bridges, particularly the medium girder bridge, the successor to the celebrated Bailey bridge, look like achieving and holding the lead for a long time to come. I am sure that this tradition will be maintained in future from the excellent base which is being retained at Christchurch.
We believe that the decision we have taken is sound and fully justified by our changed situation. Having taken the decision, the detailed working out of the proposals is being handled through well established procedures which will be operated sympathetically and spread over a period which, we hope, is long enough to avoid undue hardship for anyone.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.